Chronic Central Pain Among Community-Dwelling Survivors of Moderate-to-Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: A Quantitative Sensory Testing Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Central pain associated with changes in sensory thresholds is one of the most enduring consequences of major trauma. Yet it remains sparsely studied among community-dwelling survivors of moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). Purpose: To describe and compare thermal and mechanical sensory thresholds in home-based patients with and without central pain after moderate-to-severe TBI with a cohort of healthy controls. Design: Cross-sectional. Method: Thresholds for cold/heat detection, thermal pain, touch, and distorted sensation were gathered using quantitative sensory testing (QST). QST was performed on the painful and contralateral pain-free body regions in TBI participants with pain (TBI-P) and on both forearms in TBI participants without pain (TBI-NP) and healthy controls (HC). Central pain was characterized using the Brief Pain Inventory–Short Form. Results: We tested 16 TBI-P patients, 17 TBI-NP patients, and 16 HC. Mean time since injury for TBI patients was 24 ± 15 months. TBI-P and TBI-NP patients showed significant loss in innocuous mechanical sensitivity compared to HC ( F = 18.929; Bonferroni-adjusted p ≤ .001). Right–left differences in cold pain sensations were significantly larger in TBI-P than in TBI-NP and HC participants ( F = 14.352; Bonferroni-adjusted p ≤ .001). Elevated heat sensitivity thresholds were also observed in TBI-P participants but remained within normal range. Conclusion: Damage to cutaneous mechanoreceptors is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for the development of chronic central pain following TBI. Damage or incomplete recovery of cutaneous thermoreceptors may be a contributing factor to chronic pain after TBI.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".