Attenuated Laser Evoked Potentials in Sarcoidosis Patients in Clinical Remission
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Burning sensations and pain in hands and feet occur frequently in patients with sarcoidosis. Even when features of the granulomatous inflammation have resolved and the disease is in clinical remission, pain complaints may persevere. We hypothesized that pain may be related to dysfunctioning of the A δ nociceptive processing which is responsible for transporting pain signals. Methods: Laser Evoked Potentials were recorded in patients with sarcoidosis in clinical remission (n = 62) of whom 27% reported complaints of burning pain in hands and/or feet, and a group of healthy volunteers (n = 28). Electroencephalographic recordings following laser stimulation were evaluated in terms of N2P2-amplitude, N2P2-amplitude per ms, and N2- and P2-latencies. Results: Sarcoidosis patients in clinical remission (irrespective of burning pain complaints) showed no significant increase in N2P2-amplitude and in N2P2- amplitude per ms at stimulus intensity 2.0 Watt, while healthy controls did show a significant increase. Post hoc analysis revealed that sarcoidosis patients with burning pain complaints showed the smallest N2P2- amplitude per ms at stimulus intensity 2.0 Watt (P = 0.028). Age did not explain the differences. No differences between groups were found on the N2- and P2-latencies. Conclusions: This is the first study investigating small fiber processing in sarcoidosis patients by Laser Evoked Potentials. A δ nociceptive processing was found to be reduced in patients in which clinical signs of sarcoidosis have resolved, particularly in those reporting complaints of burning hands and/or feet. The latter data are suggestive for clinical as well as subclinical neuropathy in sarcoidosis patients after clinical remission of the disease. J Neurol Res. 2012;2(5):189-197 doi: https://doi.org/10.4021/jnr150w
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".