Endogenous pain modulation in chronic orofacial pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abnormal endogenous pain modulation was suggested as a potential mechanism for chronic pain, ie, increased pain facilitation and/or impaired pain inhibition underlying symptoms manifestation. Endogenous pain modulation function can be tested using psychophysical methods such as temporal summation of pain (TSP) and conditioned pain modulation (CPM), which assess pain facilitation and inhibition, respectively. Several studies have investigated endogenous pain modulation function in patients with nonparoxysmal orofacial pain (OFP) and reported mixed results. This study aimed to provide, through a qualitative and quantitative synthesis of the available literature, overall estimates for TSP/CPM responses in patients with OFP relative to controls. MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane databases were searched, and references were screened independently by 2 raters. Twenty-six studies were included for qualitative review, and 22 studies were included for meta-analysis. Traditional meta-analysis and robust variance estimation were used to synthesize overall estimates for standardized mean difference. The overall standardized estimate for TSP was 0.30 (95% confidence interval: 0.11-0.49; P = 0.002), with moderate between-study heterogeneity (Q [df = 17] = 41.8, P = 0.001; I = 70.2%). Conditioned pain modulation's estimated overall effect size was large but above the significance threshold (estimate = 1.36; 95% confidence interval: -0.09 to 2.81; P = 0.066), with very large heterogeneity (Q [df = 8] = 108.3, P < 0.001; I = 98.0%). Sensitivity analyses did not affect the overall estimate for TSP; for CPM, the overall estimate became significant if specific random-effect models were used or if the most influential study was removed. Publication bias was not present for TSP studies, whereas it substantially influenced CPM's overall estimate. These results suggest increased pain facilitation and trend for pain inhibition impairment in patients with nonparoxysmal OFP.
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 | 0.034 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".