Mechanism underlying painful radiculopathy in patients with lumbar disc herniation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Painful lumbar radiculopathy is a neuropathic pain condition, commonly attributed to nerve root inflammation/compression by disc herniation. The present exploratory study searched for associations between pain intensity and inflammatory markers, herniated disc size, infection, psychological factors and pain modulation in patients with confirmed painful lumbar radiculopathy scheduled for spine surgery. Methods Prior to surgery, 53 patients underwent the following evaluation: pain intensity measured on a 0–10 numeric rating scale (NRS) and the Short‐Form McGill Pain Questionnaire; sensory testing (modified DFNS protocol); pain processing including temporal summation and conditioned pain modulation (CPM); neurological examination; psychological assessment including Spielberger's Anxiety Inventory, Pain Sensitivity Questionnaire and the Pain Catastrophizing Scale. Pro‐inflammatory cytokine levels (IL‐1b, IL‐6, IL‐8, IL‐17, TNFα, IFNg) and microbial infection (ELISA and rt‐PCR) in blood and disc samples obtained during surgery. MRI scans assessments for disc herniation size/volume (MSU classification/ three‐dimensional volumetric analysis). Results Complete data were available from 40 (75%) patients (15 female) aged 44.8 ± 16.3 years. Pain intensity (NRS) positively correlated with pain catastrophizing and CPM (r = 0.437, p = 0.006; r = 0.421, p = 0.007; respectively), but not with disc/blood cytokine levels, bacterial infection or MRI measures. CPM (p = 0.001) and gender (p = 0.029) were associated with average pain intensity (adjusted R2 = 0.443). Conclusions This exploratory study suggests that pain catastrophizing, CPM and gender, seem to contribute to pain intensity in patients with painful lumbar radiculopathy. The role of mechanical compression and inflammation in determining the intensity of painful radiculopathy remains obscure. Significance of study Pain catastrophizing, CPM and gender rather than objective measures of inflammation and imaging seem to contribute to pain in patients with painful radiculopathy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".