MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3154746784 · doi:10.24018/ejmed.2021.3.2.751

Frequency of Formication Symptoms in Injured Motorists and in Normal Controls

2021· article· en· W3154746784 on OpenAlexaff
Zack Z. Cernovsky, Varadaraj R. Velamoor, Stephan C. Mann, L. Kola Oyewumi, James D. Mendonça, Larry C. Litman

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Medical and Health Sciences · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysical therapyFeelingWhiplashPsychologyMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPoison controlMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Formication is the sensation or feeling as if insects were crawling on or under the skin. It is observed in a variety of clinical situations including drug intoxications, multiple sclerosis, and diabetic neuropathy, among many others. Furthermore, it can be associated with injuries incurred during motor vehicle accidents (MVAs). We examined the frequency of reports of formication in a normal control sample as well as in a sample of motorists who sustained concussive and whiplash injuries following high impact MVAs. We also evaluated the correlations of the formication to measures of pain, insomnia, and of various post-accident neuropsychological symptoms. Method: De-identified data on 23 injured motorists (mean age=38.0 years, SD=12.8) and on 20 normal controls (mean age 42.8 years, SD=19.9) were available. All motorists responded to the following True/False item: “I have pain in my body which seems to feel like bugs crawling under the surface of my skin.” Their data were also available on the Brief Pain Inventory, Post-MVA Neurological Symptoms (PMNS) scale, Insomnia Severity Index, and on the Rivermead Post-Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire. The data of normal controls included responses to the following specific item of the formication questionnaire: “Do you sometimes have an annoying feeling in some of your limbs or in some other part of your body as if insects were crawling on or under your skin?” The participants were to circle one of the following responses: “never, very rarely, sometimes, often, or almost constantly.” Results and Discussion: Almost a third (30.4%) of the motorists who sustained whiplash trauma in their MVA reported the formication. In contrast, only one of the 20 normal controls (i.e., 5%) reported formication (this was an elderly man with MRI documented pathology in lumbosacral spine). Notably, formication correlated significantly with the ratings of “reduced feeling in the limbs” (r=.55, p=.010), but not with ratings of “tingling in the limbs” (r=.21, p>.05). Conclusion: The painful form of formication has been reported by almost a third of motorists who sustained whiplash injuries in their accident.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.314 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Medical and Health SciencesSame topicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207