Exploring the Spectrum of Temporal Summation and Conditioned Pain Modulation Responses in Pain‐Free Individuals Using a Tonic Heat Pain and Cold Pressor Test Paradigms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Temporal summation (TS) and conditioned pain modulation (CPM) are impaired in many chronic pain individuals, although typical TS and CPM responses remain unclear. Providing a quantile distribution of TS and CPM values could help determine whether TS and CPM responses fall outside the usual ranges, thereby informing pain management strategies. The objective of this study was to provide a response distribution for these mechanisms in a large, pain-free cohort. METHODS: Pain-free participants (n = 347) were evaluated. TS was interpreted as the change in pain perception scores during a constant heat pain stimulus. CPM was assessed by the difference in pain perception scores induced by a tonic heat pain stimulus and a mechanical pain threshold, before and after a cold pressor test (CPT). Quantile regression was performed to identify the 5th to 95th percentiles, with a specific focus on the 75th, 90th and 95th percentiles and their confidence intervals, while considering age and sex. RESULTS: Analyses revealed a particularly large range of TS and CPM responses, spanning from strong inhibition in CPM and strong summation in TS to moderate or even null effects. Notably, some responses deviated from the expected patterns, with certain individuals exhibiting hyperalgesic CPM effects and others displaying hypoalgesic TS responses. The highest percentiles of the TS distribution were influenced by age and gender, while CPM scores remained unchanged. CONCLUSION: The results of this study provide an overview of the possible spectra of responses for TS and CPM, potentially paving the way for their incorporation into pain management strategies. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: This study examines the spectrum and provides a distribution for TS and CPM values to better identify what may constitute a deficit in these mechanisms and enhance their clinical interpretation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrial.gov identifier: NCT03376867.
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 | 0.025 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".