Quantitative Sensory Testing Protocols to Evaluate Central and Peripheral Sensitization in Knee OA: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This scoping review analyzed various quantitative sensory testing methodologies used in the assessment of sensitization and how sensitization is defined in people with knee osteoarthritis. DESIGN: A scoping review. SETTING: All clinical and research settings. SUBJECTS: Non-surgical adults with knee osteoarthritis. METHODS: This scoping review was guided by existing scoping review methodologies. Relevant studies were extracted from the following electronic databases: Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Excerpta Medica Database, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing Allied Health Literature. Abstract and full article screening and data extraction were performed in pairs. Information on quantitative sensory testing techniques and parameters was extracted and summarized in tables. General and technique specific definitions of sensitization were extracted from included texts. RESULTS: Our search yielded 4,199 articles, of which 50 were included in our review. The most common quantitative sensory test was pressure pain threshold. In total 28 unique testing sites were found speaking to the high degree of variability between studies. Sensitization was poorly defined with only 8 studies fully operationalizing it, 22 partially, and the remainder did not provide sufficient information to meet our criteria. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review has provided an overview of the most common methods of quantitative sensory testing being implemented in the assessment of nervous system sensitization to nociceptive signaling in people with knee osteoarthritis. This study provides a foundation for future development of quantitative sensory testing methodology for research and clinical practice in the osteoarthritis population.
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 | 0.061 | 0.121 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".