Influence of Pre-Existing Pain on the Body’s Response to External Pain Stimuli: Experimental Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Accurately assessing pain severity is essential for effective pain treatment and desirable patient outcomes. In clinical settings, pain intensity assessment relies on self-reporting methods, which are subjective to individuals and impractical for noncommunicative or critically ill patients. Previous studies have attempted to measure pain objectively using physiological responses to an external pain stimulus, assuming that the participant is free of internal body pain. However, this approach does not reflect the situation in a clinical setting, where a patient subjected to an external pain stimulus may already be experiencing internal body pain. Objective: This study investigates the hypothesis that an individual's physiological response to external pain varies in the presence of preexisting pain. Methods: We recruited 39 healthy participants aged 22-37 years, including 23 female and 16 male participants. Physiological signals, electrodermal activity, and electromyography were recorded while participants were subject to a combination of preexisting heat pain and cold pain stimuli. Feature engineering methods were applied to extract time-series features, and statistical analysis using ANOVA was conducted to assess significance. Results: We found that the preexisting pain influences the body's physiological responses to an external pain stimulus. Several features-particularly those related to temporal statistics, successive differences, and distributions-showed statistically significant variation across varying preexisting pain conditions, with P values <.05 depending on the feature and stimulus. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that preexisting pain alters the body's physiological response to new pain stimuli, highlighting the importance of considering pain history in objective pain assessment models.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".