MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405235238 · doi:10.3390/jcm13247521

Nociplastic Pain in Endometriosis: A Scoping Review

2024· review· en· W4405235238 on OpenAlexafffund
Avonae Gentles, Emma C. Goodwin, Yomna Bedaiwy, Nisha Marshall, Paul J. Yong

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometriosis Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsBritish Columbia Centre of Excellence for Women's HealthWomen's Health Research InstituteUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsMedicineEndometriosisPelvic painPhysical therapyGynecologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Endometriosis is an inflammatory chronic condition associated with nociceptive, neuropathic, and nociplastic pain. Central sensitization (CS) is the primary nociplastic pain mechanism. However, there are currently no standardized methods for detecting CS or nociplastic pain. This review aims to identify available tools for characterizing CS/nociplastic pain in endometriosis-related chronic pelvic pain. Following the PRISMA-P protocol, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and PsychINFO databases were searched on 23 April 2024, for the terms "endometriosis", "central sensitization", "nociplastic pain", "widespread pain", and "assessment tools". Publications were selected if they mentioned tool(s) for detecting nociplastic pain or CS in endometriosis patients. Information was extracted on study demographics, assessment types, and the tools used for detection. Of the 379 citations retrieved, 30 papers met the inclusion criteria. When working to identify CS and nociplastic pain, fourteen studies exclusively used patient-reported questionnaires, six used quantitative sensory testing (QST), two used clinical assessments, and eight used multiple approaches combining patient-reported questionnaires and clinical assessment. This review illustrates the diversity of tools currently used to identify CS and nociplastic pain in endometriosis patients. Further research is needed to evaluate their validity and to standardize methods in order to improve the accuracy of nociplastic pain identification and guide treatment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0140.016
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.325
GPT teacher head0.605
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations18
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical MedicineSame topicEndometriosis Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207