Is there a relationship between somatosensory impairment and the perception of pain in stroke survivors? An exploratory study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pain and somatosensory impairments are commonly reported following stroke. This study investigated the relationship between somatosensory impairments (touch detection, touch discrimination and proprioceptive discrimination) and the reported presence and perception of any bodily pain in stroke survivors. Stroke survivors with somatosensory impairment ( N = 45) completed the Weinstein Enhanced Sensory Test (WEST), Tactile Discrimination Test, and Wrist Position Sense Test for quantification of somatosensation in both hands and the McGill Pain Questionnaire, visual analog scale and the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI) for reporting presence and perception of pain. No relationship was observed between somatosensory impairment (affected contralesional hand) of touch detection, discriminative touch or proprioceptive discrimination with the presence or perception of pain. However, a weak to moderate negative relationship between touch detection in the affected hand (WEST) and perception of pain intensity (NPSI) was found, suggesting that stroke survivors with milder somatosensory impairment of touch detection, rather than severe loss, are likely to experience higher pain intensity [rho = -0.35; 95% confidence interval (CI), -0.60 to -0.03; P = 0.03]. Further, a moderate, negative relationship was found specifically with evoked pain (NPSI) and touch detection in the affected hand (rho = -0.43; 95% CI, -0.72 to -0.02; P = 0.03). In summary, our findings indicate a weak to moderate, albeit still uncertain, association, which prevents making a definitive conclusion. Nevertheless, our findings contribute to our understanding of the complexities surrounding the experience of pain in survivors of stroke and provide direction for future studies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".