The Effect of Stress on Repeated Painful Stimuli with and Without Painful Conditioning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Stress and pain have been interrelated in clinical widespread pain conditions. Studies indicate that acute experimental stress in healthy volunteers has a negative effect on the descending inhibitory pain control system and thus the ability to inhibit one painful stimulus with another (conditioned pain modulation [CPM]) although without effect on general pain sensitivity. CPM effects can be assessed immediately after the stress induction, whereas some physiological stress responses (e.g., cortisol release) are delayed and longer lasting. It is unclear whether CPM may relate to stress-induced increases in cortisol. DESIGN: Twenty-five healthy men had CPM effects measured over a period of 10 minutes. Pain detection thresholds (PDTs) were assessed by repeated test stimuli with cuff algometry on one leg, with and without painful cuff pressure conditioning on the contralateral leg. CPM effects, assessed as the increase in PDT during conditioning stimulation compared with without, were measured before and after experimental stress and a control condition (Montreal Imaging Stress Task [MIST]). Saliva cortisol levels and self-perceived stress were collected. RESULTS: Participants reported the MIST to be more stressful compared with the MIST control, but cortisol levels did not change significantly from baseline. In all sessions, PDT increased during conditioning (P = 0.001), although the MIST compared with the MIST control had no significant effect on PDT or CPM effects. A negative correlation between changes in cortisol and conditioned PDT was found when applying the MIST (P < 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: No significant effect of stress was found on CPM compared with a matched control condition. Individual changes in experimental stress and in conditioned pain sensitivity may be linked with cortisol.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".