The relationship between the Rat Grimace Scale and mechanical hypersensitivity testing in three experimental pain models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The assessment of facial expressions associated with pain has been used to evaluate pain in humans and has recently found application in non-human mammals. These so called 'grimace scales' have the potential to be developed into a widely accepted non-invasive method of measuring pain in laboratory rodents. Currently, common methodologies to assess pain rely on nociceptive tests that assess stimulus evoked withdrawal responses. These tests, however, are limited to the assessment of a reflexive response without an affective component. This study aimed to use the recently developed Rat Grimace Scale (RGS) and assess its relationship with a conventional nociceptive test (the application of von Frey filaments). METHODS: Fifty-two adult, male Wistar rats were randomized to one of five treatment groups: intraplantar carrageenan, intraplantar complete Freund's adjuvant (CFA), plantar incision, anaesthetic control and saline injection control. The RGS and response to mechanical hypersensitivity testing was evaluated at predetermined time points before and after treatment until withdrawal responses returned to baseline levels. RESULTS: The RGS score significantly increased in all pain models. The peak RGS score also coincided with the development of paw hypersensitivity. However, mechanical hypersensitivity persisted after RGS scores returned to baseline. CONCLUSION: This study confirms that the three pain models induce pain in rodents and showed that peak pain coincided with peak mechanical hypersensitivity. However, mechanical hypersensitivity remained once pain subsided, mimicking the human experience of CFA injection. These findings further our understanding of the roles of, and relationship between, these assays in the assessment of nociception and 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 | 0.019 | 0.003 |
| 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".