The effect of conditioning stimulus intensity on conditioned pain modulation (CPM) hypoalgesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The magnitude and duration of conditioned pain modulation (CPM) likely depends on the nature and intensity of the conditioning stimulus (CS).Aims: The aim of this study was to measure the effect of CS intensity on the duration of CPM hypoalgesia.Methods: In this single-blind, nonrandomized, repeated measures study, we assessed CPM hypoalgesia in 20 healthy participants following cold pressor tests (CPT) at 7°C and 12°C. The test stimulus, a 60-s heat stimulation, was administered before the CPT and immediately after, and again at 5-min intervals until participants’ pain scores returned to pre-CS levels. Two hypoalgesia thresholds were used to establish return to pre-CS level: within −10/100 of baseline and within −20/100 of baseline.Results: CPM hypoalgesia, when defined as a reduction in pain levels >10/100, did not last longer following the more intense 7°C CPT compared to the 12°C CPT (32 min vs. 20 min, respectively; P = 0.06); similar results were obtained when CPM hypoalgesia was defined as a reduction in pain levels of >20/100 (16 min following the 7°C CPT vs. 9 min following the 12°C CPT; P = 0.33). The duration of CPM hypoalgesia was significantly longer when the 10/100 threshold was used compared to the 20/100 threshold, regardless of CPT temperature (P = 0.008 for the 12°C CPT; P < 0.001 for the 7°C CPT).Conclusions: The more intense CS did not induce CPM hypoalgesia of longer duration compared to the less intense CS. The choice of threshold for what constitutes CPM hypoalgesia did have a significant effect on the results.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".