Exploring the neural correlates of touch and pain in women with provoked vestibulodynia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Group differences in touch and pain thresholds-and their neural correlates-were studied in women with provoked vestibulodynia (PVD; N = 15), a common subtype of vulvodynia (chronic vulvar pain), and pain-free control women (N = 15). Results from quantitative sensory testing and self-report measures indicated that, as compared with control participants, women with PVD exhibited allodynia (ie, pain in response to a normally nonpainful stimulus) and hyperalgesia (ie, an increased response to a normally painful stimulus) at vulvar and nonvulvar sites. In addition, brain imaging analyses demonstrated reduced difference scores between touch and pain in the S2 area in women with PVD compared with control participants, supporting previous findings of allodynia in women with PVD. There were no significant reductions in difference scores between touch and pain for regions related to cognitive and affective processing of painful stimuli. The results of this study contribute important information to the general pain and vulvodynia literatures in elucidating the specific sensorimotor neural mechanisms that underlie hyperalgesia in a chronic pain population. These results have implications for differentiating neural processing of touch and pain for women with and without PVD. Future research should attempt to examine alterations related to hyperalgesia in commonly comorbid conditions of PVD.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".