Latent Modulation of Neuropathic Pain Intensity via Hypothalamus-pituitary-thyroid Axis of Psychogenic Stress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In patients with complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) delayed pain flares consistently occur ten days following salient psychogenic stress episodes. Timing of latent flares suggests pain modulation via hypothalamus-pituitary-thyroid (HPT) axis hormones.\nObjective: To determine if thyroxine (T4) may modulate latent stress-related neuropathic pain flare intensity, temporal relationships between daily stress, serum T4 levels, and perceived pain intensity in patients with CRPS were investigated.\nPatients and Methods: Daily, for ten weeks, three patients with type I CRPS and no thyroid pathology Hx provided blood samples for T4 assay and ratings of stress and pain. Measures included visual analog pain scale, McGill pain questionnaire, and Daily Stress Scale. Blood draws yielded bound T4 and free thyroxine index (FTI) values using microplate enzyme immunoassay. Each sample was split for blind assay from two independent labs.\nResults: Across patients, 14 peak stress episodes and 26 significant pain flares were reported. Each stress episode was followed ten days by a significant pain flare and free T4 values exceeding normal adult range (2.4ng/dL). Serial lag correlations were strongest between stress and pain for pain experienced ten days after peak stress episodes (r=+0.381, p< 0.05). FTI correlated strongest with stress ten days following a stressful episode (r =+0.454, p< 0.001). Same-day pain and FTI correlated at r=+0.643, p< 0.001.\nConclusions: Increased pain ten days following stressful events is related to psychogenic HPT activity in CRPS patients. Pain modulation by thyroxine may assist understanding pain fluctuation etiology and suggest new treatment avenues for managing neuropathic pain.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".