Translational validity of quantitative sensory testing in chronic pain neuro-sensitization: guide of use and interpretation in osteoarthritis animal models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic osteoarthritis (OA) pain is a complex nociplastic condition that affects humans, as well as cats and dogs. This review summarizes the physiology of pain in healthy individuals, the physiopathology of OA pain, and the use of quantitative sensory testing (QST) to objectively assess somatosensory sensitization associated with chronic OA pain. It discusses the translation of human OA pain phenotype profiles to animals, the management of neuro-sensitization with currently prescribed treatments, and complementary methods for evaluating neuro-sensitization, such as electrodiagnostic testing. Additionally, this review serves as a practical guide for standardizing QST in rats, cats, and dogs, with explanatory appendices. It was hypothesized that in translational comparison with the human condition, OA-induced rat models and naturally occurring OA in cats and dogs would exhibit similar somatosensory sensitization profiles. As observed in human OA, an imbalance between facilitatory and inhibitory endogenous controls is also evident in animal OA. This dysregulation can be characterized using QST and underlies the distinct nociceptive phenotypes. Confirming and validating OA pain profiles will promote a patient-tailored approach to effectively alleviate neuro-sensitization in humans and animals.
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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".