Altered Pain in the Brainstem and Spinal Cord of Fibromyalgia Patients During the Anticipation and Experience of Experimental Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic pain associated with fibromyalgia (FM) affects a large portion of the population but the underlying mechanisms leading to this altered pain are still poorly understood. Evidence suggests that FM involves altered neural processes in the central nervous system and neuroimaging methods such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) are used to reveal these underlying alterations. While many fMRI studies of FM have been conducted in the brain, recent evidence shows that the changes in pain processing in FM may be linked to autonomic and homeostatic dysregulation, thus requiring further investigation in the brainstem and spinal cord. Functional magnetic resonance imaging data from 15 women with FM and 15 healthy controls were obtained in the cervical spinal cord and brainstem at 3 tesla using previously established methods. In order to investigate differences in pain processing in these groups, participants underwent trials in which they anticipated and received a predictable painful stimulus, randomly interleaved with trials with no stimulus. Differences in functional connectivity between the groups were investigated by means of structural equation modeling. The results demonstrate significant differences in brainstem/spinal cord network connectivity between the FM and control groups which also correlated with individual differences in pain responses. The regions involved in these differences in connectivity included the LC, hypothalamus, PAG, and PBN, which are known to be associated with autonomic homeostatic regulation, including fight or flight responses. This study extends our understanding of altered neural processes associated with FM and the important link between sensory and autonomic regulation systems in this disorder.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".