Experimental tonic hand pain modulates the corticospinal plasticity induced by a subsequent hand deafferentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sensorimotor reorganization is believed to play an important role in the development and maintenance of phantom limb pain, but pain itself might modulate sensorimotor plasticity induced by deafferentation. Clinical and basic research support this idea, as pain prior to amputation increases the risk of developing post-amputation pain. The aim of this study was to examine the influence of experimental tonic cutaneous hand pain on the plasticity induced by temporary ischemic hand deafferentation. Sixteen healthy subjects participated in two experimental sessions (Pain, No Pain) in which transcranial magnetic stimulation was used to assess corticospinal excitability in two forearm muscles (flexor carpi radialis and flexor digitorum superficialis) before (T0, T10, T20, and T40) and after (T60 and T75) inflation of a cuff around the wrist. The cuff was inflated at T45 in both sessions and in the Pain session capsaicin cream was applied on the dorsum of the hand at T5. Corticospinal excitability was significantly greater during the Post-inflation phase (p=0.002) and increased similarly in both muscles (p=0.861). Importantly, the excitability increase in the Post-inflation phase was greater for the Pain than the No-Pain condition (p=0.006). Post-hoc analyses revealed a significant difference between the two conditions during the Post-inflation phase (p=0.030) but no difference during the Pre-inflation phase (p=0.601). In other words, the corticospinal facilitation was greater when pain was present prior to cuff inflation. These results indicate that pain can modulate the plasticity induced by another event, and could partially explain the sensorimotor reorganization often reported in chronic pain populations.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".