Changes in Pain Sensitization After Bariatric Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate changes in pain (at the knee and elsewhere) and pain sensitization in obese subjects with knee pain who were having bariatric surgery compared with similarly obese individuals who were undergoing medical management. METHODS: This study included a cohort of subjects who were having bariatric surgery and those undergoing medical management. Knee pain severity of the more painful knee (index knee) was assessed at baseline and at 12 months using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. The pressure pain threshold (PPT) was evaluated at the index patella and the right wrist. Low patella PPT may reflect peripheral and/or central sensitization, and low wrist PPT may reflect central sensitization. The mean change in measures of pain and pain sensitization was analyzed in the surgery and medical management groups separately. RESULTS: A total of 45 subjects in the surgery group and 22 in the medical management group completed baseline and follow-up visits. The mean weight loss was 32.7 kg (29.0%) and 4.6 kg (4.1%) in the surgery and medical management groups, respectively. Knee pain decreased only in the surgery group, in which the PPT at the patella improved by 38.5% (P = 0.0007) and at the wrist by 30.9% (P = 0.005). There was no significant change in PPT in the medical management group. CONCLUSION: Persons who underwent bariatric surgery experienced an improvement in pain sensitization, reflected by improvements in PPT. This improvement was observed not only at the patella, but also at the wrist, suggesting that central sensitization improved after bariatric surgery.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".