Chronobiological Characteristics of Neuropathic Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Neuropathic pain is often worse at night; however, little is known about pain rhythmicity during waking hours. We aimed to replicate previous observations of diurnal pain progression, evaluate associations between diurnal rhythmicity and clinical factors, and evaluate the impact of diurnal rhythmicity on treatment response. METHODS: We performed exploratory analyses of 2 trials (The New England Journal of Medicine 2005; 352:1324; The Lancet 2009; 374:1252) in diabetic neuropathy and postherpetic neuralgia. Pain recorded at 8:00 AM, 4:00 PM, and 8:00 PM, at baseline and during drug treatment was examined. RESULTS: Data from the latest trial replicated our previous observation of diurnal pain progression with a relative pain intensity difference of 33% between 8:00 AM and 8:00 PM. This pattern was preserved during treatment with gabapentin, nortriptyline, and their combination. Pooled multivariable analyses suggested that difference in pain intensity from 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM was more pronounced in females (vs. males) and in diabetic peripheral neuropathy (vs. postherpetic neuralgia). The baseline magnitude of pain intensity difference from 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM failed to predict treatment response. DISCUSSION: These observations suggest that neuropathic pain progressively increases throughout the day with clinically relevant morning-evening differences and further indicate that sex and underlying etiology may be important determinants of diurnal rhythmicity in neuropathic pain. Consideration of these patterns may guide improved therapeutic strategies and stimulate new directions of research that will improve our understanding and treatment of neuropathic pain.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".