MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392754865 · doi:10.2147/jpr.s436645

Contact-Heat Evoked Potentials: Insights into Pain Processing in CRPS Type I

2024· article· en· W4392754865 on OpenAlexaff
Florin Allmendinger, Paulina S. Scheuren, Iara De Schoenmacker, Florian Brunner, Jan Rösner, Armin Curt, Michèle Hubli

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pain Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Management and Treatment
Canadian institutionsInternational Collaboration On Repair DiscoveriesUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversität ZürichH. Lundbeck A/SNational Science FoundationLundbeckfondenInternational Foundation for Research in ParaplegiaSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
KeywordsComplex regional pain syndromeMedicineNociceptionPeripheralChronic painCentral sensitizationStimulationAnesthesiaSensory systemQuantitative sensory testingSensitizationSensory processingPhysical medicine and rehabilitationNeurosciencePhysical therapyInternal medicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: The pathophysiological mechanisms underlying the development of chronic pain in complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) are diverse and involve both peripheral and central changes in pain processing, such as sensitization of the nociceptive system. The aim of this study was to objectively distinguish the specific changes occurring at both peripheral and central levels in nociceptive processing in individuals with chronic CRPS type I. Patients and Methods: Nineteen individuals with chronic CRPS type I and 16 age- and sex-matched healthy controls (HC) were recruited. All individuals underwent a clinical examination and pain assessment in the most painful limb, the contralateral limb, and a pain-free control area to distinguish between peripheral and central mechanisms. Contact-heat evoked potentials (CHEPs) were recorded after heat stimulation of the three different areas and amplitudes and latencies were analyzed. Additionally, quantitative sensory testing (QST) was performed in all three areas. Results: Compared to HC, CHEP amplitudes in CRPS were only increased after stimulation of the painful area (p=0.025), while no increases were observed for the pain-free control area (p=0.14). None of the CHEP latencies were different between the two cohorts (all p>0.23). Furthermore, individuals with CRPS showed higher pain ratings after stimulation of the painful limb compared to their contralateral limb (p=0.013). Lastly, compared to HC, mechanical (p=0.012) and thermal (p=0.046) sensitivity was higher in the painful area of the CRPS cohort. Conclusion: This study provides neurophysiological evidence supporting an intact thermo-nociceptive pathway with signs of peripheral sensitization, such as hyperexcitable primary afferent nociceptors, in individuals with CRPS type I. This is further supported by the observation of mechanical and thermal gain of sensation only in the painful limb. Additionally, the increased CHEP amplitudes might be related to fear-induced alterations of nociceptive processing.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.670
Threshold uncertainty score0.571

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.078
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.341 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pain ResearchSame topicPain Management and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207