Pain Sensitivity in Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders: A Narrative Review of Recent Work
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many patients with schizophrenia seem relatively immune to physical pain while others complain of constant pain. This may result from disturbances or alterations of the sensory threshold for pain in populations with psychosis, a possibility for which there is some preliminary evidence. The inconsistency in pain perception may, in part, be explained by the treatments patients receive, but treatment-naïve patients also exhibit differences in response to pain. This suggests that decreased pain sensitivity may represent a specific psychosis endophenotype. Thus far, few experimental studies have investigated sensory thresholds, pain modalities, or other factors contributing to the perception or expression of physical pain in psychosis. A digital search for information on this topic was conducted in PubMed and Google Scholar. The result is a non-systematic, narrative review focusing on recent clinical and experimental findings of pain sensitivity in patients with psychosis. Importantly, physical and mental pain are closely connected constructs that may be difficult to differentiate. Our hope is that the review provides some clarity to the field in the specific context of schizophrenia.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".