Responses to Slowly Repeated Evoked Pain Stimuli in Fibromyalgia Patients: Evidence of Enhanced Pain Sensitization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The pathophysiology of fibromyalgia has been related to central pain sensitization. This study tested a laboratory protocol evaluating responses to slowly repeated evoked pain stimuli (SREP) that may index central pain sensitization in fibromyalgia. DESIGN: A between-subjects controlled laboratory study. SUBJECTS: Twenty-four fibromyalgia patients and 24 healthy participants. METHODS: A SREP protocol was administered to all subjects, consisting of a single series of nine low-intensity pressure stimuli of five-second duration and thirty-second interstimulus interval. Subjective evoked pain intensity was assessed with a visual analogical scale. Clinical fibromyalgia pain was assessed with the McGill Pain Questionnaire. RESULTS: Perceived pain intensity increased during the SREP protocol in fibromyalgia patients but not in healthy participants. Neither pain threshold nor pain tolerance was associated with SREP. Degree of SREP sensitization was associated with McGill Pain Questionnaire-Sensory ratings of fibromyalgia pain. The effect size for differences between the fibromyalgia and healthy control groups was greater, and the overlaps of the groups distributions lower, for SREP sensitization than for traditional evoked pain measures of pain threshold and tolerance. SREP demonstrated higher specificity in discriminating fibromyalgia and control groups relative to pain threshold or tolerance. CONCLUSIONS: A protocol employing a single series of nine low-suprathreshold-intensity slowly repeated pain stimuli elicits increased perceived pain in fibromyalgia patients, consistent with central sensitization despite relatively long interstimulus intervals. SREP appears to be more useful than traditional evoked pain threshold tolerance measures in terms of predicting levels of clinical pain and discriminating between fibromyalgia patients and healthy individuals.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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".