Increased somatosensory amplification is associated with decreased pressure pain thresholds at both trigeminal and extra‐trigeminal locations in healthy individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of temporomandibular disorders (TMD) is based on patient history and physical examination, and may require medical imaging. Masticatory muscle palpation is essential to make a diagnosis of TMD. However, the response of masticatory muscles to mechanical pressure stimuli depends on many physical and psychological factors. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed at determining the impact of somatosensory amplification (SSA)-an estimate of somatic awareness and bodily hypervigilance-on pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) measured at both trigeminal and extra-trigeminal locations in healthy individuals. METHODS: PPTs were measured at the right anterior temporalis and superficial masseter, and the thenar eminence of the right hand in one hundred healhty individuals (69F, 31M), divided in three groups based on their SSA scores: low (N = 32), intermediate (N = 34) and high (N = 34). General linear models were used to test between-group differences in PPTs including sex as a covariate. The level of significance was set at P < .05. RESULTS: Individuals with high SSA had lower PPTs at the anterior temporalis than individuals with low (P = .006) and intermediate (P = .001) SSA. No significant between-group differences were found in PPTs measured at the masseter (P = .372). PPTs measured at the thenar eminence were significantly lower in the high than the low SSA group (P = .009). Females had lower PPTs at the masseter than males (P = .021) but not at other muscle locations (all P > .05). CONCLUSION: Increased somatosensory amplification is associated with decreased pressure pain thresholds at both trigeminal and extra-trigeminal locations in healthy individuals. SSA could be a potential confounder while diagnosing TMD and evaluating treatment outcomes.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".