Thermal temporal summation and decay of after-sensations in temporomandibular myofascial pain patients with and without comorbid fibromyalgia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Chronic myofascial temporomandibular disorders (TMD) may have multiple etiological and maintenance factors. One potential factor, central pain sensitization, was quantified here as the response to the temporal summation (TS) paradigm, and that response was compared between case and control groups. OBJECTIVES: As previous research has shown that fibromyalgia (FM) is diagnosed iñ20% of TMD patients, Aim 1 determined whether central sensitization is found preferentially in myofascial TMD cases that have orofacial pain as a regional manifestation of FM. Aim 2 determined if the report of after-sensations (AS) following TS varied depending on whether repeated stimuli were rated as increasingly painful. METHODS: One hundred sixty-eight women, 43 controls, 100 myofascial TMD-only cases, and 25 myofascial TMD + FM cases, were compared on thermal warmth and pain thresholds, thermal TS, and decay of thermal AS. All cases met Research Diagnostic Criteria for TMD; comorbid cases also met the 1990 American College of Rheumatology criteria for FM. RESULTS: Pain thresholds and TS were similar in all groups. When TS was achieved (~60%), significantly higher levels of AS were reported in the first poststimulus interval, and AS decayed more slowly over time, in myofascial TMD cases than controls. By contrast, groups showed similar AS decay patterns following steady state or decreasing responses to repetitive stimulation. CONCLUSION: In this case-control study, all myofascial TMD cases were characterized by a similar delay in the decay of AS. Thus, this indicator of central sensitization failed to suggest different pain maintenance factors in myofascial TMD cases with and without FM.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".