The Psychosocial Characteristics and Somatosensory Function of Children and Adolescents Who Meet the Criteria for Chronic Nociplastic Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Don Daniel Ocay,1– 3 Brendan D Ross,4 Lorenzo Moscaritolo,3 Nabeel Ahmed,4 Jean A Ouellet,2,5– 7 Catherine E Ferland,1– 3,6– 8,* Pablo M Ingelmo3,6– 8,* 1Department of Experimental Surgery, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada; 2Department of Clinical Research, Shriners Hospitals for Children Canada, Montreal, QC, Canada; 3Edwards Family Interdisciplinary Centre for Complex Pain, Montreal Children’s Hospital, Montreal, QC, Canada; 4Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada; 5Department of Pediatric Surgery, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada; 6Department of Anesthesia, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada; 7Research Institute-McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada; 8Alan Edwards Research Center for Pain, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada*These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: Pablo M Ingelmo, Edwards Family Interdisciplinary Centre for Complex Pain, Montreal Children’s Hospital, B02-3525-1001 Boulevard Décarie, Montreal, H4A 13J, Canada, Tel +1 514 412-4448, Fax +1 514 412-4341, Email pablo.ingelmo@mcgill.caPurpose: Nociplastic pain distinguishes individuals with pain and hypersensitivity in body regions with apparently normal tissues, without any signs of neuropathy, but with contribution of central and/or peripheral sensitization. There is a lack of literature describing nociplastic pain in the pediatric population. The objective of this study was to investigate the differences between pediatric patients with nociplastic pain compared with patients with non-nociplastic pain.Patients and Methods: This study included 414 pediatric patients followed at an interdisciplinary centre for complex pain. All patients underwent an exhaustive pain assessment consisting of face-to-face interviews, validated self-report questionnaires and quantitative sensory testing. Recently established criteria for chronic nociplastic pain, and quantitative sensory testing was used to describe and stratify our cohort.Results: One hundred and sixty-five patients (40%) were stratified as having possible nociplastic pain and two hundred and forty-nine (60%) patients, as non-nociplastic pain. Patients with nociplastic pain displayed pain hypersensitivity in the region of pain, more symptoms of panic and social phobia, and worse sleep quality than patients with non-nociplastic pain. The proportion of patients achieving a meaningful clinical outcome after completion of their treatment (medications, physiotherapy, psychology, nursing, social worker, and/or interventional procedures) was lower in patients with nociplastic pain (62%) than those without nociplastic pain (86%).Conclusion: Our results suggest that patients who meet the criteria for nociplastic pain can be identified in a population of children and adolescents being treated in a center for complex pain. Combining screening with validated questionnaires and quantitative sensory testing facilitates the phenotyping and graded severity of patients with nociplastic pain in daily clinical practice.Keywords: nociplastic pain, chronic pain, children, adolescents, quantitative sensory testing
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".