Intact endogenous pain inhibition in complex regional pain syndrome type 1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction: Impaired endogenous pain modulation is a common characteristic of various chronic pain conditions and may be a key mechanism underlying the development of chronic pain in complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS). One way to assess endogenous pain modulation in humans is through conditioned pain modulation (CPM) paradigms. Objectives: This study aimed to assess CPM capacity in chronic CRPS type 1 and its potential association with the individual pain phenotype. Methods: Sixteen individuals with chronic CRPS type 1 and 15 age- and sex-matched healthy controls (HC) were enrolled. Parallel and sequential CPM paradigms were performed at 2 testing sites: the most painful area and a remote, pain-free area using pressure pain thresholds as a test stimulus and a cold water bath as a conditioning stimulus. Individuals with CRPS underwent pain phenotyping to assess the characteristics of CRPS-related pain. Results: The CPM capacity did not differ between individuals with CRPS and HC ( P 's > 0.05). Complex regional pain syndrome showed intact pain inhibition assessed in both areas in the parallel and sequential CPM paradigm ( P 's < 0.05). Furthermore, the CPM capacity of individuals with CRPS did not correlate with individual pain characteristics (ie, pain intensity, pain extent, and pain duration; P 's > 0.05). Conclusion: Our results indicate that in individuals with chronic CRPS type 1, endogenous pain inhibition is intact and comparable with healthy individuals. Therefore, pathomechanisms underlying chronic CRPS are likely related to increased pain facilitatory rather than impaired inhibitory processes.
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 | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| 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".