Similar effects of fatigue induced by a repetitive pointing task on local and remote light touch and pain perception in men and women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Women involved in repetitive, fatiguing, jobs develop more neck and/or shoulder musculoskeletal disorders than men. Sex differences in the pain response to exercise could contribute to the higher prevalence of neck/shoulder musculoskeletal disorders in women. The objective of this study was to assess sex differences in pain sensitivity following a fatiguing upper limb task. Relationships between measures of fatigue and of the sensitivity to nociceptive and to non-nociceptive stimulations were also explored. METHODS: Thirty healthy adults (15 women) performed a fatiguing repetitive pointing task with their dominant arm. Upper limb electromyography was recorded from the dominant upper trapezius, anterior deltoid and bicep brachii and from the contralateral tibialis anterior. Before and immediately after the repetitive pointing task, pressure pain and light touch sensitivity thresholds were measured over the same muscles. RESULTS: Electromyographic signs of fatigue were observed only in the anterior deltoid and biceps brachii muscles. Pressure pain thresholds over both muscles increased slightly (effect size ≤ 0.34), but no changes occurred over the upper trapezius and the tibialis anterior. Light touch thresholds increased moderately to importantly after the repetitive pointing task over all four muscles (effect sizes = 0.58 to 0.87). No sex differences were observed in any sensory variable. Moreover, no or weak correlations (r = -0.27 to 0.39) were observed between electromyographical signs of fatigue, light touch threshold and pressure pain threshold variables. CONCLUSIONS: We observed sex-independent effects of a repetitive upper limb task on the sensitivity to painful and to nonpainful stimuli. Moreover, the hypoalgesia induced by the repetitive pointing task was weak and localized, and did not directly correlate with the induced muscle fatigue. Results suggest that fatigue-related changes in the sensitivity to noxious and innocuous stimuli could not explain women's greater prevalence of neck/shoulder musculoskeletal disorders.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".