Peripheral Neuropathy Induces Cutaneous Hypersensitivity in Chronically Spinalized Rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: The present study was aimed at the issue of whether peripheral nerve injury-induced chronic pain is maintained by supraspinal structures governing descending facilitation to the spinal dorsal horn, or whether altered peripheral nociceptive mechanisms sustain central hyperexcitability and, in turn, neuropathic pain. We examined this question by determining the contribution of peripheral/spinal mechanisms, isolated from supraspinal influence(s), in cutaneous hypersensitivity in an animal model of peripheral neuropathy. METHODS: Adult rats were spinalized at T8-T9; 8 days later, peripheral neuropathy was induced by implanting a 2-mm polyethylene cuff around the left sciatic nerve. Hind paw withdrawal responses to mechanical or thermal plantar stimulation were evaluated using von Frey filaments or a heat lamp, respectively. RESULTS: Spinalized rats without cuff implantation exhibited a moderate decrease in mechanical withdrawal threshold on ~day 10 (P < 0.05) and in thermal withdrawal threshold on ~day 18 (P < 0.05). However, cuff-implanted spinalized rats developed a more rapid and significant decrease in mechanical (~day 4; P < 0.001) and thermal (~day 10; P < 0.05) withdrawal thresholds that remained significantly decreased through the duration of the study. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate an aberrant peripheral/spinal mechanism that induces and maintains thermal and to a greater degree tactile cutaneous hypersensitivity in the cuff model of neuropathic pain, and raise the prospect that altered peripheral/spinal nociceptive mechanisms in humans with peripheral neuropathy may have a pathologically relevant role in both inducing and sustaining 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) | 0.001 | 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".