Greater Conditioned Pain Modulation Is Associated With Enhanced Morphine Analgesia in Healthy Individuals and Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Conditioned pain modulation (CPM) protocols index magnitude of descending pain inhibition. This study evaluated whether the degree of CPM, controlling for CPM expectancy confounds, was associated with analgesic and subjective responses to morphine and whether chronic pain status or sex moderated these effects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants included 92 individuals with chronic low back pain and 99 healthy controls, none using daily opioid analgesics. In a cross-over design, participants attended 2 identical laboratory sessions during which they received either intravenous morphine (0.08 mg/kg) or saline placebo before undergoing evoked pain assessment. In each session, participants engaged in ischemic forearm and heat pain tasks, and a CPM protocol combining ischemic pain (conditioning stimulus) and heat pain (test stimulus). Placebo-controlled morphine outcomes were derived as differences in pain and subjective effects across drug conditions. RESULTS: In hierarchical regressions controlling for CPM expectancies, greater placebo-condition CPM was associated with less subjective morphine unpleasantness (P=0.001) and greater morphine analgesia (P's<0.05) on both the ischemic pain task (Visual Analog Scale Pain Intensity and Unpleasantness) and heat pain task (Visual Analog Scale Pain Intensity, McGill Pain Questionnaire-Sensory, and Present Pain Intensity subscales). There was no moderation by sex or chronic low back pain status, except for the ischemic Present Pain Intensity outcome for which a significant 2-way interaction (P<0.05) was noted, with men showing a stronger positive relationship between CPM and morphine analgesia than women. DISCUSSION: Results suggest that CPM might predict analgesic and subjective responses to opioid administration. Further evaluation of CPM as an element of precision pain medicine algorithms may be warranted.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".