Single-trial averaging improves the physiological interpretation of contact heat evoked potentials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Laser and contact heat evoked potentials (LEPs and CHEPs, respectively) provide an objective measure of pathways and processes involved in nociception. The majority of studies analyzing LEP or CHEP outcomes have done so based on conventional, across-trial averaging. With this approach, evoked potential components are potentially confounded by latency jitter and ignore relevant information contained within single trials. The current study addressed the advantage of analyzing nociceptive evoked potentials based on responses to noxious stimulations within each individual trial. Single-trial and conventional averaging were applied to data previously collected in 90 healthy subjects from 3 stimulation locations on the upper limb. The primary analysis focused on relationships between single and across-trial averaged CHEP outcomes (i.e., N2P2 amplitude and N2 and P2 latencies) and subject characteristics (i.e., age, sex, height, and rating of perceived intensity), which were examined by way of linear mixed model analysis. Single-trial averaging lead to larger N2P2 amplitudes and longer N2 and P2 latencies. Age and ratings of perceived intensity were the only subject level characteristics associated with CHEPs outcomes that significantly interacted with the method of analysis (conventional vs single-trial averaging). The strength of relationships for age and ratings of perceived intensity, measured by linear fit, were increased for single-trial compared to conventional across-trial averaged CHEP outcomes. By accounting for latency jitter, single-trial averaging improved the associations between CHEPs and physiological outcomes and should be incorporated as a standard analytical technique in future studies.
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 | 0.008 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".