Pain sensitivity questionnaire in endometriosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is increasing recognition that nociplastic pain and central sensitization may play a role in endometriosis-associated pain. The Pain Sensitivity Questionnaire Minor (PSQ-M) evaluates subjective widespread pain sensitivity, and is linked to pain outcomes in chronic pain populations. However, evidence connecting the PSQ-M to central sensitization in endometriosis is limited. Using the Central Sensitization Inventory (CSI) as a comparison, this study compared the PSQ-M as a clinical proxy for central sensitization in endometriosis individuals. Data collected from 983 endometriosis participants (mean age of 34 years), between January 2020 and December 2022, were analyzed from a prospective registry. A significant but weak positive correlation was observed between PSQ-M and CSI scores (r=0.099, p<0.001). A significant but weak correlation was found between the number of central sensitivity syndromes and pelvic pain-related comorbidities with the PSQ-M (r=0.093, p<0.001), compared to a stronger correlation with the CSI (r=0.687, p<0.05). PSQ-M scores were not significantly associated with baseline (r=0.013, p=0.797) or post-operative (r=-0.046, p=0.801) quality-of-life. There was no change in the PSQ-M and a small change in CSI after endometriosis surgery, suggesting that surgical treatment of endometriosis does not directly address central sensitization. In conclusion, the PSQ-M may not be the optimal clinical proxy for central sensitization in endometriosis. PERSPECTIVE: This study evaluates the Pain Sensitivity Questionnaire - Minor (PSQ-M) as a proxy for central sensitization in endometriosis. The PSQ-M showed weak correlations with central sensitivity syndromes and pain scores and was not associated with post-surgical quality-of-life, suggesting it may not be the optimal tool for assessing central sensitization in endometriosis.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".