L’allodynie mécanique statique est une HYPO-esthésie paradoxalement douloureuse au toucher : Une analyse rétrospective de 86 patients souffrant d’un SDRC de Budapest du pied
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To determine the falsifiability of the proposed etiology of static mechanical allodynia (SMA) as a paradoxical painful touch-evoked slight tactile HYPO-aesthesia caused by Aβ axonal lesions in patients treated for Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) of the foot. Methods: This is a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected clinical data of patients with CRPS of the foot. Patients who achieved resolution of their SMA following the assessment and treatment of the method of Somatosensory Pain Rehabilitation (SPR) were included in the study. The shift from SMA to an underlying tactile HYPO-aesthesia supported the recommendation of somatosensory re-learning of the method of SPR. Allodynography and Rainbow Pain Scale were two clinical examination signs used pre-treatment to quantify the allodynic territory. The quality and intensity of pain were assessed using the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ). Then, the underlying tactile HYPO-aesthesia was assessed with the 2-Point Discrimination Test (2PDT) and Pressure Perception Threshold (PPT). Results: Eighty-six patients with a CRPS of the foot were included. On admission, 43 patients had a discrete, 26 a consequential and 17 a serious SMA. After disappearance of SMA, patients had a slight and partial underlying HYPO-aesthetic territory confirmed with a PTT mean of 2.8 g. Significant improvements were noted for the MPQ, PPT and 2PDT (p < 0.001) with a large effect size. Conclusion: This study confirms that SMA is a paradoxical painful touch-evoked tactile HYPO-aesthesia in patients with CRPS. Moreover, results support the efficacy of the method of SPR to improve neuropathic pain within this population.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".