Diffuse Noxious Inhibitory Control Function in Women With Provoked Vestibulodynia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study was to assess diffuse noxious inhibitory control (DNIC) function in women with provoked vestibulodynia (PVD) compared with healthy controls through the use of 2 different methodologies. Furthermore, the study aimed to assess whether pain characteristics correlate with DNIC in women with PVD. METHODS: Twenty-three healthy control women and 23 women diagnosed with PVD by the study gynecologist participated in the study. To assess DNIC, heat pain tolerance, determined through an ascending method of limits and temporal summation of thermal pain were used as test stimuli and a cold water bath was used as the conditioning stimulus. Participants reported on pain characteristics as potential correlates with DNIC function. RESULTS: No significant group differences were found in the number of DNIC responders per group when using heat pain tolerance or temporal summation procedures to examine DNIC. The magnitude of the DNIC response was examined for the overall groups and for positive DNIC responders only. When all participants were included in the analyses with the heat pain tolerance procedure, women with PVD displayed a higher magnitude of DNIC responding. Correlations between pain variables and DNIC responding and magnitude were nonsignificant. DISCUSSION: Results support previous findings of intact DNIC function in women with PVD, using both an ascending method of limits and a temporal summation paradigm. Pain-related variables were not correlated with DNIC function in women with PVD, perhaps this unexpected finding is due to the possibility that central processes other than DNIC, such as descending facilitation, provoke or maintain this chronic pain condition.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".