White matter hyperintensities in Burning Mouth Syndrome assessed according to the Age-Related White Matter Changes scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background White matter hyperintensities (WMHs) of the brain are observed in normal aging, in various subtypes of dementia and in chronic pain, playing a crucial role in pain processing. The aim of the study has been to assess the WMHs in Burning Mouth Syndrome (BMS) patients by means of the Age-Related White Matter Changes scale (ARWMCs) and to analyze their predictors. Methods One hundred BMS patients were prospectively recruited and underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain. Their ARWMCs scores were compared with those of an equal number of healthy subjects matched for age and sex. Intensity and quality of pain, psychological profile, and blood biomarkers of BMS patients were further investigated to find potential predictors of WMHs. Specifically, the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), Hamilton rating scale for Depression and Anxiety (HAM-D and HAM-A), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) were administered. Results The BMS patients presented statistically significant higher scores on the ARWMCs compared to the controls, especially in the right frontal, left frontal, right parietal-occipital, left parietal-occipital, right temporal and left temporal lobes ( p -values: <0.001, <0.001, 0.005, 0.002, 0.009, 0.002, and <0.001, respectively). Age, a lower educational level, unemployment, essential hypertension, and hypercholesterolemia were correlated to a higher total score on the ARWMCs ( p -values: <0.001, 0.016, 0.014, 0.001, and 0.039, respectively). No correlation was found with the blood biomarkers, NRS, SF-MPQ, HAM-A, HAM-D, PSQI, and ESS. Conclusion Patients with BMS showed a higher frequency of WMHs of the brain as suggested by the higher ARWCs scores compared with the normal aging of the healthy subjects. These findings could have a role in the pathophysiology of the disease and potentially affect and enhance pain perception.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".