Pain facilitation and pain inhibition during conditioned pain modulation in fibromyalgia and in healthy controls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although fibromyalgia (FM) is associated with a deficit in inhibitory conditioned pain modulation (CPM), the discriminative power of CPM procedures is unknown. Moreover, the high intersubject heterogeneity in CPM responses in FM raises the possibility that a sizeable subgroup of these patients may experience pain facilitation during CPM, but the phenomenon has not been explicitly studied. To address these issues, 96 patients with FM and 71 healthy controls were recruited. Thermal stimuli were used to measure pain thresholds. Pain inhibition was elicited using a tonic thermal test (Peltier thermode) administered before and after activation of CPM mechanisms using a cold pressor test. Thermal pain thresholds were lower in patients with FM than in healthy controls. Pain ratings during the cold pressor test were higher in patients with FM, relative to controls. The CPM inhibitory efficacy was lower in patients with FM than in controls. The CPM procedure had good specificity (78.9%) but low sensitivity (45.7%), whereas a composite pain index had good sensitivity (75.0%) and specificity (78.9%). Finally, the rate of patients with FM who reported pain facilitation during the CPM procedure was found to be significantly increased compared with that of controls (41.7% vs 21.2%). The good discriminative power of the composite pain index highlights the need for further validation studies using mechanistically relevant psychophysical procedures in FM. The low sensitivity of the CPM procedure, combined with the large proportion of patients with FM experiencing pain facilitation during CPM, strongly suggests that endogenous pain inhibition mechanisms are deeply impaired in patients with FM, but only in a subgroup of them.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".