Conditioning to Enhance the Effects of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation on Experimental Pain in Healthy Volunteers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: In this proof-of-concept study we sought to explore whether the combination of conditioning procedure based on a surreptitious reduction of a noxious stimulus (SRPS) could enhance rTMS hypoalgesic effects [i.e., increase heat pain threshold (HPT)] and augment intervention expectations in a healthy population. Methods: Forty-two healthy volunteers (19-35 years old) were enrolled in a randomized crossover-controlled study and were assigned to one of two groups: (1) SRPS and (2) No SRPS. Each participant received two consecutive sessions of active or sham rTMS over the M1 area of the right hand on two visits (1) active, (2) sham rTMS separated by at least one-week interval. HPT and the temperature needed to elicit moderate heat pain were measured before and after each rTMS intervention on the right forearm. In the SRPS group, conditioning consisted of deliberately decreasing thermode temperature by 3°C following intervention before reassessing HPT, while thermode temperature was held constant in the No SRPS group. Intervention expectations were measured before each rTMS session. Results: SRPS conditioning procedure did not enhance hypoalgesic effects of rTMS intervention, neither did it modify intervention expectations. Baseline increases in HPT were found on the subsequent intervention session, suggesting variability of this measure over time, habituation or a possible "novelty effect." Conclusion: Using a SRPS procedure in healthy volunteers did not enhance rTMS modulating effects on experimental pain sensation (i.e., HPT). Future studies are therefore needed to come up with a conditioning procedure which allows significant enhancement of rTMS pain modulating effects in healthy volunteers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".