working-paperBRC-2026-E101
“My back feels hot” is a clear statement, but the object of study is not. Skin-surface temperature, spontaneous warmth, burning pain, itch-associated burning, and responses to imposed thermal stimuli may be different phenomena. We searched modern biomedical research, Korean scholarship, related expressions in East Asian medical texts, and clinical safety guidance. The search did not reveal one cause. It revealed that several observations had been folded into one symptom name while different fields measured only fragments of it. This reader edition reconnects the evidence of four source papers as one scientific essay.
working-paperBRC-2026-W101
Recurrent localized back heat or burning sounds like one observation, yet spontaneous sensation, skin-surface temperature, evoked thermoception, and conditional safety assessment are distinct evidence objects. This critical synthesis crosses indirect evidence on pain language, sensory testing, thermography, dorsal sensory syndromes, and two selected UK guidelines. No reviewed source establishes a default cause or diagnosis. A useful next study must preserve participants’ wording, location, depth, boundary, and timing, then link each episode to concurrent measurements.
working-paperBRC-2026-W102
This evidence map asks what has actually been studied around recurrent localized back heat. Prespecified source roles covered modern biomedical literature, Korean and East Asian databases, classical terminology, and safety sources; twelve priority objects received passage-level verification. The available literature clusters around itch-defined dorsal sensory syndromes, evoked sensory testing, post-exercise skin temperature, pain descriptors, and selected safety guidelines. No participant-level study was found that linked a spontaneous target episode with concurrent skin temperature and sensory testing. Negative yields define a bounded search gap, not proof of absence.
protocolBRC-2026-W103
This protocol specifies a small prospective feasibility study of recurrent heat, warmth, burning, or adjacent thermal expressions localized to the back. Participants’ original wording and drawn boundaries are preserved before investigators apply a prespecified eligibility dictionary. Event, symptom-free comparator, and standardized-visit clocks are separated; sensation maps, skin-surface temperature, evoked thermoception, functional impact, and context remain non-interchangeable observation lanes. The study does not validate a diagnostic tool, and it treats safety exits and missingness as reportable outcomes.
working-paperBRC-2026-W104
“Heat” or “burning” may matter clinically, but the word alone cannot establish cause, risk, imaging need, or reassurance. This counter-hypothesis combines inconsistent descriptor evidence, selection and missingness in dorsal sensory cohorts, construct differences across thermography and sensory testing, and the conditional context of selected NICE guidelines. Those guidelines do not use thermal wording as a stand-alone decision rule; they depend on population, tempo, distribution, and associated findings. Research phenotyping must therefore remain separate from safety decisions, and this paper does not offer individual clinical instructions.
