Is the Volume of the Caudate Nuclei Associated With Area of Secondary Hyperalgesia? – Protocol for a 3-Tesla MRI Study of Healthy Volunteers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Experience and development of pain may be influenced by a number of physiological, psychological, and psychosocial factors. In a previous study we found differences in neuronal activation to noxious stimulation, and microstructural neuroanatomical differences, when comparing healthy volunteers with differences in size of the area of secondary hyperalgesia following a standardized burn injury. OBJECTIVE: We aim to investigate the degree of association between the volume of pain-relevant structures in the brain and the size of the area of secondary hyperalgesia following brief thermal sensitization. METHODS: The study consists of one experimental day, in which whole-brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans will be conducted including T1-weighed three-dimensional anatomy scan, diffusion tensor imaging, and resting state functional MRI. Before the experimental day, all included participants will undergo experimental pain testing in a parallel study (Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02527395). Results from this experimental pain testing, as well as the size of the area of secondary hyperalgesia from the included participants, will be extracted from this parallel study. RESULTS: The association between the volume of pain-relevant structures in the brain and the area of secondary hyperalgesia will be investigated by linear regression of the estimated best linear unbiased predictors on the individual volumes of the pain relevant brain structures. CONCLUSIONS: We plan to investigate the association between experimental pain testing parameters and the volume, connectivity, and resting state activity of pain-relevant structures in the brain. These results may improve our knowledge of the mechanisms responsible for the development of acute and chronic pain. CLINICALTRIAL: Danish Research Ethics Committee (identifier: H-15010473). Danish Data Protection Agency (identifier: RH-2015-149). Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02567318; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02567318 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6i4OtP0Oi).
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.004 |
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".