Altered Central Pain Processing in Patients With Chronic Plantar Heel Pain: A Critically Appraised Topic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clinical Scenario: Plantar heel pain is a common condition frequently associated with persistent symptoms and functional limitations affecting both the athletic and nonathletic populations. Common interventions target impairments at the foot and ankle and local drivers of symptoms. If symptoms are predominantly perpetuated by alterations in central pain processing, addressing peripheral impairments alone may not be sufficient. Clinical Question: Do individuals with chronic plantar heel pain demonstrate signs potentially associated with altered central pain processing? Summary of Key Findings: After searching 6 electronic databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, SportDiscus, Cochrane, and PEDro) and filtering titles based on predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria, 4 case-control studies were included. All studies scored highly on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for quality assessment. Using pressure pain thresholds, each study found decreased pressure pain hypersensitivity locally and at a remote site compared to control groups, suggesting the presence, to some extent, of altered nociceptive pain processing. Clinical Bottom Line: In the studies reviewed, reported results suggest a possible presence of centrally mediated symptoms in persons with plantar heel pain. However, despite findings from these studies, limitations in appropriate matching based on body mass index and measures used suggest additional investigation is warranted. Strength of Recommendation: According to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, there is evidence level C to suggest chronic plantar heel pain is associated with alterations in central pain processing.
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 | 0.004 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".