Psychogenic and Neurogenic Components in Patients with Psychogenic or Neuropathic Pruritus: Prurineuro: A Non-Interventional Single-Centre Prospective Assay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The causes of pruritus are multiple and commonly classified into six different categories: dermatological, systemic, neuropathic, psychogenic, mixed and idiopathic. In clinical practice, psychogenic and neurogenic mechanisms tend to be separated in the etiological diagnosis of neuropathic or psychogenic disorders; nevertheless, studies investigating the respective psychogenic and neurogenic components are lacking. Objective The main objective of this work was to highlight the differences and potential common characteristics between psychogenic pruritus and neuropathic pruritus. Methods This study was a noninterventional single-centre prospective assay. Patients with neuropathic (NP) or psychogenic (PP) pruritus were proposed to participate. The psychogenic and neurogenic components of pruritus in these patients were evaluated using six validated questionnaires or criteria, namely, the diagnosis criteria of psychogenic pruritus, the NP5 questionnaire, the Brest Pruritus Qualitative Assessment Questionnaire, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Toronto Alexithymia Scale, and DN4i. Results Twenty-five patients with NP and 15 with PP were included. A difference between the two groups was observed for NP5, with mean scores of 2.8 ± 0.9 and 1.4 ± 1 for the NP and PP groups, respectively (p < 0.0001). For depression, the average score was 3.5 ± 3.9 for the NP group and 7.5 ± 5.1 for the PP group (p < 0.02). Conclusion While neuropathic and psychogenic disorders are different diagnoses, neuropathic and psychogenic components may exist simultaneously in patients with NP or PP.
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 | 0.000 | 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".