Nociceptive flexion reflex in small fibers neuropathy and pain assessments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The nociceptive flexion reflex (NFR) is a polysynaptic and multisegmental spinal reflex that develops in response to a noxious stimulus and is characterized by the withdrawal of the affected body part. The NFR possesses two excitatory components: early RII and late RIII. Late RIII is derived from high-threshold cutaneous afferent A-delta fibers, which are prone to injury early in the course of diabetes mellitus (DM) and may lead to neuropathic pain. We investigated NFR in patients with DM with different types of polyneuropathies to analyze the role of NFR in small fiber neuropathy (SFN). METHODS: We included 37 patients with DM and 20 healthy participants of similar age and sex. We performed the Composite Autonomic Neuropathy Scale-31, modified Toronto Neuropathy Scale, and routine nerve conduction studies. We grouped the patients into large fiber neuropathy (LFN), SFN, and no overt neurological symptom/sign groups. In all participants, NFR was recorded on anterior tibial (AT) and biceps femoris (BF) muscles after train stimuli on the sole of the foot, and NFR-RIII findings were compared. RESULTS: We identified 11 patients with LFN, 15 with SFN, and 11 with no overt neurological symptoms or signs. The RIII response on the AT was absent in 22 (60%) patients with DM and 8 (40%) healthy participants. The RIII response on the BF was absent in 31 (73.8%) patients and 7 (35%) healthy participants (P = .001). In DM, the latency of RIII was prolonged, and the magnitude was reduced. Abnormal findings were seen in all subgroups; however, they were more prominent in patients with LFN compared to other groups. CONCLUSIONS: The NFR-RIII was abnormal in patients with DM even before the emergence of the neuropathic symptoms. The pattern of involvement before neuropathic symptoms was possibly related to an earlier loss of A-delta fibers.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.004 | 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".