Comparing Pain Modulation and Autonomic Responses in Fibromyalgia and Irritable Bowel Syndrome Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Past studies confirm that patients with fibromyalgia (FM) and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) show similar pain processing dysfunctions, such as reduced pain inhibition and aberrant autonomic nervous system (ANS) responses. However, patients with FM and IBS have rarely been investigated in the same study. The aim of the present study, therefore, was to compare descending pain inhibition, pain sensitivity, and ANS reactivity to pain in FM, IBS, and healthy controls (HC). METHODS: Female patients with FM (n=10), IBS (n=13), and HCs (n=10) were exposed to multiple cold water (12°C) immersions to study pain sensitivity and descending pain inhibition. Heart rate variability was also assessed during immersions. RESULTS: Pain intensity scores were highest in FM, intermediate in IBS, and smallest in HCs. In contrast, pain inhibition was absent in FM, intermediate in IBS, and strongest in HCs. Importantly, controlling for differences in pain inhibition abolished group differences in pain sensitivity. Heart rate variability analyses confirmed that, in response to mild levels of pain, patients with FM showed greater sympathetic activity whereas HCs showed greater parasympathetic activity. Patients with IBS showed intermediate ANS responses. DISCUSSION: Our results confirm the presence of graded levels of somatic hyperalgesia across patients with IBS and FM. A similar pattern of result was observed for pain inhibitory dysfunctions. These pain processing changes were accompanied by abnormal autonomic responses, which maintained patients (principally patients with FM) in a state of sympathetic hyperactivity. Results suggest that patients with IBS and FM may present common, but graded, pain processing and autonomic dysfunctions.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".