MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411154031 · doi:10.3390/biology14060662

Neurobiology of Chronic Pain, Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, and Mild Traumatic Brain Injury

2025· review· en· W4411154031 on OpenAlexaff
Gerald Young, Hella Thielen, Kristin W. Samuelson, Joel Jin

Bibliographic record

VenueBiology · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyTraumatic brain injuryPosttraumatic stressChronic painNeurosciencePhysical medicine and rehabilitationClinical psychologyPsychiatryPsychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: This article describes the neurobiology of psychological injuries-chronic pain, concussion/mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI), and fear/posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD)-toward elucidating common mechanisms in central and peripheral sensitization that contribute to their onset, exacerbation, and maintenance. Central sensitization refers to central nervous system (CNS) and related processes, while peripheral sensitization is typically referred to as receptor field expansion. The three psychological injury diagnoses/conditions are accompanied by impairments in function after negligent events (such as motor vehicle accidents (MVAs)) that lead to tort court action. METHODS: The conducted literature review involved an extensive scoping review of recent neurobiological literature on chronic pain, PTSD, and MTBI. The literature review sought biological markers that distinguish them. RESULTS: For chronic pain, concussion/MTBI, and fear/PTSD, this article reviewed definitions and critical neurobiological research. The literature review did not find evidence of biological markers, but the role of sensitization emerged as important. CONCLUSIONS: Common therapeutic processes, such as focusing on sensitization, might be helpful for these conditions. As for causal mechanisms related to sensitization in the causality of psychological injuries, the major ones hypothesized relate to the biopsychosocial model, psychological control, and activation-inhibition coordination.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.916
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.123
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations9
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiologySame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207