MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2900932247 · doi:10.1515/sjpain-2018-0107

Pain assessment in hospitalized spinal cord injured patients – a controlled cross-sectional study

2018· article· en· W2900932247 on OpenAlex
Amalie Rosendahl, Søren Krogh, Helge Kasch

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueScandinavian Journal of Pain · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCross-sectional studySpinal cordPhysical therapyEmergency medicinePsychiatryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and aims Following spinal cord injury (SCI), a majority of individuals may develop neuropathic pain, which further reduces quality of life. Pain is difficult to treat by medication; in fact, medication overuse may aggravate neuropathic pain in SCI by causing central sensitization (CS): a mechanism of hyper-reactivity of the dorsal horn neurons in the spinal cord with amplified cerebral pain response. The purpose of this study was to examine the presence of neuropathic pain and CS above the spinal lesion in SCI, and to investigate whether injury characteristics or medication influenced pain response. Methods Twenty-four SCI patients with various injury characteristics (eight subacute, traumatic injuries, eight chronic, traumatic injuries, eight non-traumatic injuries) and 12 able-bodied controls underwent sensory testing:pressure algometry, Von Frey filaments (sensitivity), and repetitive pinprick stimulation (pain windup). SCI participants also fulfilled a modified version of the McGill Pain Questionnaire. Data were analyzed regarding (i) SCI patients compared with controlgroup and (ii) SCI subgroup comparison (grouped by a) injury characteristics and (b) intake of analgesics, where low-medicated subgroup were prescribed only non-opioids and high-medicated potent opioids). Results Neuropathic pain was present in 21 of 24 SCI patients. Chronic and non-traumatic SCI patients reported considerably higher present pain intensity than sub-acute traumatic SCI patients on a five-point scale (3.13±0.99, 1.75±1.75 and 0.13±0.35, respectively, p<0.005). Reduced pressure pain detection thresholds (PPDT) were found in SCI patients at several supra-lesional anatomical points compared to controls. Contrarily, tactile detection thresholds were higher in SCI. SCI subgroup analyses showed that i) the low-medicated SCI subgroup displayed significantly lower PPDT compared to the high-medicated subgroup, ii) pain-windup was present in all subgroups although the sub-acute and non-traumatic subgroups displayed lesser pain windup than controls, and the chronic SCI subgroup mainly displayed higher pain windup. Conclusions The reduced PPDT found above lesion suggests the presence of CS in SCI. However, findings regarding SCI subgroup comparison did not support our hypothesis that more medication leads to increased CS. Implications The development of CS may complicate diagnosis and pain treatment following SCI. Prospective studies of SCI with a healthy control group are needed.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.727

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.341 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it