Pain profiling in migraine: a systematic review of Quantitative Sensory Testing (QST), Conditioned Pain Modulation (CPM), and Corneal Confocal Microscopy (CCM)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review is to identify pain profiling parameters that are reliably different between patients with migraine and healthy controls, using Quantitative Sensory Testing (QST) including Temporal Summation (TS), Conditioned Pain Modulation (CPM), and Corneal Confocal Microscopy (CCM). METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted (up to 23 May 2024). The quality of the research was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for non-randomized studies. RESULTS: Twenty-eight studies were included after screening. The QST studies indicate that migraine patients exhibit lower pressure pain thresholds (PPT), particularly in the trigeminal region. A previous meta-analysis reported lower heat pain thresholds (HPT). CPM studies suggest a (mild) inhibitory or absent response in migraine patients, not different from controls. High-frequency and chronic migraine patients may exhibit a facilitatory CPM response. With repeated executions of CPM, migraine patients display a diminishing CPM response, a phenomenon not observed in control subjects. CCM investigations in migraine patients revealed conflicting outcomes, likely as a result of small sample sizes and limited characterization of migraine features. CONCLUSION: Pain profiling migraine patients varies due to sensory modality, applied methods, anatomical sites, and migraine features. Understanding pain profiling offers insights into migraine pathophysiology, requiring careful selection of parameters and differentiation among migraine subtypes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.034 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".