Pain quality of thermal grill illusion is similar to that of central neuropathic pain rather than peripheral neuropathic pain
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objectives Application of spatially interlaced innocuous warm and cool stimuli to the skin elicits illusory pain, known as the thermal grill illusion (TGI). This study aimed to discriminate the underlying mechanisms of central and peripheral neuropathic pain focusing on pain quality, which is considered to indicate the underlying mechanism(s) of pain. We compared pain qualities in central and peripheral neuropathic pain with reference to pain qualities of TGI-induced pain. Methods Experiment 1:137 healthy participants placed their hand on eight custom-built copper bars for 60 s and their pain quality was assessed by the McGill Pain Questionnaire. Experiment 2: Pain quality was evaluated in patients suffering from central and peripheral neuropathic pain (42 patients with spinal cord injury, 31 patients with stroke, 83 patients with trigeminal neuralgia and 131 patients with postherpetic neuralgia). Results Experiment 1: Two components of TGI-induced pain were found using principal component analysis: component 1 included aching , throbbing , heavy and burning pain , component 2 included itching , electrical-shock , numbness , and cold-freezing . Experiment 2: Multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) and cross tabulation analysis revealed specific pain qualities including aching , hot-burning , heavy , cold-freezing , numbness , and electrical-shock pain were associated with central neuropathic pain rather than peripheral neuropathic pain. Conclusions We found similar qualities between TGI-induced pain in healthy participants and central neuropathic pain rather than peripheral neuropathic pain. The mechanism of TGI is more similar to the mechanism of central neuropathic pain than that of neuropathic pain.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.044 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it