Effects of Conditioned Pain Modulation on the Nociceptive Flexion Reflex in Healthy People: A Systematic Review.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The nociceptive flexion reflex (NFR) is a spinal reflex induced by painful stimuli resulting in a withdrawal response. Research has shown that the NFR is inhibited through endogenous pain inhibitory mechanisms, which can be assessed by conditioned pain modulation (CPM) paradigms. Although accumulating research suggests that the NFR can be affected by CPM, no clear overview of the current evidence exists. Therefore, the present review aimed at providing such a synthesis of the literature. In addition, the influence of personal factors on the CPM of the NFR was investigated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review was performed and reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Five electronic databases were searched to identify relevant articles. Retrieved articles were screened on eligibility using predefined inclusion criteria. Risk of bias was investigated according to the modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Levels of evidence and strength of conclusion were assigned following the guidelines of the Dutch Institute for Healthcare Improvement. RESULTS: Forty articles were included. There is some evidence that CPM produced by thermal or mechanical stimuli induces inhibitory effects on the NFR. However, inconclusive evidence exists with regard to the effect of electrical conditioning stimuli. While several personal factors do not affect CPM of the NFR, increased cognitive interference is associated with reduced NFR inhibition. DISCUSSION: The present review demonstrates that certain types of nociceptive conditioning stimuli have the potential to depress, at the spinal level, nociceptive stimuli elicited from distant body regions. Although CPM of the NFR seems to be robust to the influence of several personal factors, it can be affected by cognitive influences.
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 | 0.005 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".