MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2970118816 · doi:10.1515/sjpain-2019-0055

Experimental shoulder pain models do not validly replicate the clinical experience of shoulder pain

2019· article· en· W2970118816 on OpenAlex
Milton Cohen, Mark Halaki, Joanna Diong, Karen Ginn

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 · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHypertonic salinePhysical therapyRotator cuffReferred painPhysical medicine and rehabilitationmyalgiaMcGill Pain QuestionnaireAnesthesiaSurgeryVisual analogue scaleInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and aims People with shoulder pain often present with abnormal shoulder muscle function. It is not known whether shoulder pain causes or is the result of muscle dysfunction. If pain leads to muscle dysfunction, therapeutic interventions that produce shoulder pain may be contraindicated. Experimentally induced nociception can be used to investigate a causal relationship between shoulder pain and muscle dysfunction. However, the validity of current experimental shoulder pain protocols has not been established. The aim of this study was to determine whether current experimental shoulder pain protocols validly replicate the clinical experience of shoulder pain with respect to pain distribution, quality and behaviour. Methods Nine pain free participants received two injections of hypertonic saline, one into the subacromial space and one into supraspinatus, in random order, at least 1 week apart. Investigators blind to the injection site assessed pain distribution, pain response to clinical tests which provoke shoulder pain and pain quality assessed using the McGill Pain Questionnaire. Results Following hypertonic saline injection into both the subacromial space and supraspinatus: pain was most commonly reported in the deltoid region and did not extend beyond the elbow; the most common response to clinical tests which provoke shoulder pain was a decrease in pain; and the highest rating of pain quality was in the sensory domain with very few responses in the affective domain. Conclusions Experimental shoulder pain induced by injection of hypertonic saline into either the subacromial space or supraspinatus produced a pain distribution similar to that observed in clinical shoulder pain, but neither experimental pain protocol could reproduce the increases in pain intensity following shoulder provocation tests or the emotional distress commonly observed in people with clinical shoulder pain. Implications Pain induced by local shoulder nociception produced by hypertonic saline injection into shoulder structures has significant limitations as a model of clinical shoulder pain. While it is perhaps unsurprising that short duration, chemically-induced experimental pain does not replicate the quality of the clinical experience of shoulder pain, the validity of experimental shoulder pain models which produce the opposite response to provocation testing to clinical shoulder pain must be questioned.

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)0.013
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.642
Threshold uncertainty score0.854

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.309 · 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