Novel neurophysiological evidence for preserved pain habituation across chronic pain conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The present study aimed to investigate whether subjective and objective measures of pain habituation can be used as potential markers for central sensitization across various chronic pain patients. METHODS: Two blocks of contact-heat stimuli were applied to a non-painful area in 93 chronic pain patients (low back pain, neuropathic pain, and complex regional pain syndrome) and 60 healthy controls (HC). Habituation of pain ratings, contact-heat evoked potentials (CHEP), and sympathetic skin responses (SSR) was measured. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in any measure of pain habituation between patients and HC. Even patients with apparent clinical signs of central sensitization showed no reduced pain habituation. However, prolonged baseline CHEP and SSR latencies (stimulation block 1) were found in patients compared to HC (CHEP: Δ-latency = 23 ms, p = 0.012; SSR: Δ-latency = 100 ms, p = 0.022). CONCLUSION: Given the performed multimodal neurophysiological testing protocol, we provide evidence indicating that pain habituation may be preserved in patients with chronic pain and thereby be of limited use as a sensitive marker for central sensitization. These results are discussed within the framework of the complex interactions between pro- and antinociceptive mechanism as well as methodological issues. The prolonged latencies of CHEP and SSR after stimulation in non-painful areas may indicate subclinical changes in the integrity of thermo-nociceptive afferents, or a shift towards antinociceptive activity. This shift could potentially affect the relay of ascending signals. SIGNIFICANCE: Our findings challenge the prevailing views in the literature and may encourage further investigations into the peripheral and central components of pain habituation, using advanced multimodal neurophysiological techniques.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".