Effect of a peripheral NMDA receptor antagonist on glutamate-evoked masseter muscle pain and mechanical sensitization in women.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To test the hypothesis that local injection of the N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist ketamine would significantly attenuate glutamate-evoked masseter mechanical sensitization and muscle pain in healthy young women either taking oral contraceptives (W+OC) or not taking oral contraceptives (W-OC). METHODS: Experimental pain was evoked in 47 healthy female subjects (W+OC, n=25; W-OC, n=22) by 2 injections of glutamate (0.2 mL, 1 mol/L) into the masseter muscle. A first injection of glutamate alone was followed by a second injection, 35 minutes later, of glutamate combined with ketamine (0, 1, or 10 mmol/L). Evoked pain intensity was scored on a 10-cm electronic visual analog scale (VAS). Distribution of perceived pain was drawn on a lateral view of the face (pain drawing). Masseter muscle pressure pain thresholds (PPT) and pressure-pain tolerances (PPTOL) were determined bilaterally before and at regular time intervals after injections. Analyses of variance (ANOVA) were used to test the data. RESULTS: There were no main effects of ketamine on any of the VAS pain parameters or on the pain drawing (ANOVAs: P > .055). Furthermore, there were no differences in PPT, PPTOL, VAS peak pain, duration, overall VAS pain, or pain drawing when W-OC were compared with W+OC (ANOVAs: P > .087). Repeated injection of glutamate alone significantly decreased PPT and PPTOL (ANOVAs: P < .001); however, this effect was not significantly attenuated by ketamine. CONCLUSIONS: Peripherally administered ketamine had no effect on glutamate-evoked masseter muscle pain and sensitization in healthy young women, which contrasts with recent observations in healthy young men. Further studies will be needed to reveal the mechanisms that underlie this apparent sex-related difference in ketamine-mediated analgesia.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".