Association of Pain Sensitization and Conditioned Pain Modulation to Pain Patterns in Knee Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the cross-sectional association of ascending pain mechanisms, implicated in pain sensitization, and descending pain modulation with pain patterns and unpredictability of pain. METHODS: The Multicenter Osteoarthritis Study is a longitudinal cohort of older adults with or at risk of knee osteoarthritis. Peripheral and central ascending pain mechanisms were assessed using quantitative sensory tests, pressure pain thresholds using a handheld pressure algometer (knee/peripheral and wrist/central), and temporal summation using weighted probes (wrist/central). Descending modulation was assessed by conditioned pain modulation using pressure pain thresholds and a forearm ischemia test. Pain patterns were characterized based on responses to the Intermittent and Constant Osteoarthritis Pain questionnaire: 1) no intermittent or constant pain, 2) intermittent pain only, 3) constant pain only, and 4) combined constant and intermittent pain. A question regarding frequency assessed unpredictable pain. We assessed the association of quantitative sensory test measures to pain patterns using regression models with generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: , and 57% female). Lower pain sensitization by wrist pressure pain threshold (odds ratio [OR] 0.80 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.68, 0.93]) and adequate conditioned pain modulation (OR 1.45 [95% CI 1.10, 1.92]) were associated with having constant ± intermittent pain compared with intermittent pain only. Higher pain sensitization (by pressure pain thresholds and temporal summation) was associated with a higher likelihood of unpredictable pain. CONCLUSION: Knee pain patterns appear to be related to peripheral ± central facilitated ascending pain mechanisms and descending modulatory mechanisms. These findings highlight the need for a broader approach to understanding pain mechanisms by symptomatic disease progression.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".