Understanding inter-individual variability of experimental pain habituation and conditioned pain modulation in healthy individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although reduced experimental pain habituation is proposed as a proxy of diminished endogenous pain modulatory capacity in chronic pain, prior studies show contradictory findings. Even across healthy participants, pain habituation varies substantially, which may relate to another measure of endogenous pain modulation, i.e., conditioned pain modulation (CPM). Hence, this study investigated the relationship between pain habituation and CPM. Pain habituation was assessed in 45 healthy participants between two blocks of 15-20 contact-heat stimuli applied to the hand. Habituation of subjective pain ratings and objective neurophysiological readouts (contact-heat evoked potential (CHEP) and palmar sympathetic skin response (SSR)) was investigated. CPM was assessed by comparing heat pain thresholds before and after hand immersion in a noxious cold (9 °C) and lukewarm water bath (32 °C, to control for repeated measures effects). Pain habituation showed a large variability, with subjective but not objective pain habituation correlating with cold-induced CPM effects (r = 0.50; p = 0.025). This correlation was not observed for 'true' CPM effects (corrected for repeated measures effects) nor for CPM effects induced by a lukewarm water bath. These findings suggest that the observed variability in subjective pain habituation may be influenced by both descending endogenous pain modulation and peripheral adaptation processes associated with repeated measures. Objective pain habituation readouts, i.e., CHEPs and SSRs, capture different, complementary aspects of endogenous pain modulation.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".