Tactile Detection in Fibromyalgia: A Systematic Review and a Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fibromyalgia is a chronic pain syndrome characterized by sensorimotor deficits and distortions of body representation, that could both be caused by alterations in sensory processing. Several studies suggest a hypersensitivity to various sensory stimulations in fibromyalgia but results on detection of both noxious and non-noxious tactile stimulation, which are particularly relevant for body representation and motor control, remain conflicting. Therefore, the aim of this study is to systematically review and quantify the detection thresholds to noxious and non-noxious tactile stimuli in individuals with fibromyalgia compared to pain-free controls. A systematic review and a meta-analysis were performed in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane, PsycInfo and Web of Science databases using keywords related to fibromyalgia, tactile pain detection threshold, tactile detection threshold and quantitative sensory testing. Nineteen studies were included in the review, with 12 in the meta-analysis. Despite the heterogeneity of the results, the data from both the review and from the meta-analysis suggest a trend toward hyperalgesia and no difference of sensitivity to non-noxious tactile stimuli in participants with fibromyalgia compared to healthy controls. This contradicts the hypothesis of a general increase in responsiveness of the central nervous system to noxious and non-noxious stimulations in fibromyalgia. This study shows no alteration of the sensitivity to non-noxious tactile stimulation in fibromyalgia, suggesting that an altered unimodal processing is not sufficient to explain symptoms such as sensorimotor impairments and body representation distortions. Future research should investigate whether alterations in multisensory integration could contribute to these symptoms.
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 | 0.011 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".