Do “central sensitization” questionnaires reflect measures of nociceptive sensitization or psychological constructs? Protocol for a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Central sensitization (CS) was first defined in animal studies to be increased nociceptive responsiveness due to sensitization of neurons in the central nervous system, usually the result of prolonged nociceptive input or a disease state. Recently, the concept of CS has been adopted in clinical assessments of chronic pain, but its diagnosis in humans has expanded to include the enhancement of a wide range of nociceptive, sensory, and emotional responses. Many poorly understood pain disorders are referred to as "central sensitivity syndrome," a term associated with a broad range of hypervigilant sensory and emotional responses. Diagnosis often involves a review of medical records and an assessment of behaviour, emotional disposition, and overall sensitivity of a patient. Obviously, these assessments are unable to directly capture the responsiveness of nociceptive neurons. The purpose of this review is to ascertain whether self-report questionnaires associated with central sensitization and the diagnosis of central sensitivity syndrome are associated with enhanced nociceptive responses or whether they more validly measure sensitivity in a broader sense (ie, including emotional responses). METHODS: Following the PRISMA guidelines, a detailed search of studies that involve the Central Sensitization Inventory or Pain Sensitivity Questionnaire correlated with either nociceptive sensory tests (quantitative sensory testing) or emotional hypervigilance (anxiety, depression, stress, etc) will be conducted on MEDLINE, PsychINFO, and Web of Science. PERSPECTIVE: The review is expected to synthesize correlations between sensitivity questionnaires and nociceptive or emotional sensitivity to determine whether these questionnaires reflect a broadened understanding of the term "central sensitization."
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 | 0.044 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.017 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.055 | 0.006 |
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".