Acidic saline‐induced pain as a model for experimental masseter myalgia in healthy subjects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Repeated injection of acidic saline into skeletal muscles of the leg in rodents induces a prolonged bilateral mechanical hyperalgesia that persists for up to 30 days and may be useful to model widespread muscle pain conditions. In this study, repeated injection of acidic (pH 3.3) saline solution into the masseter muscle of healthy human subjects was undertaken to determine if these injections are painful and whether they would induce a prolonged period of muscle sensitization to artificial and/or natural mechanical stimulation of the masseter and temporalis muscles. METHODS: Eighteen subjects (10 male, 8 female) participated in the study. Subjects received two injections of 0.5 mL acidic or regular isotonic saline 2 days apart, in a randomized, double blind, crossover design. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in pain intensity ratings when acidic saline injections were compared with regular saline injections. Pain area drawings were, however, significantly larger in response to the first injection of acidic saline than to the second injection of acidic saline or to either the first or second injection of regular saline. Repeated injection of acidic saline did not significantly alter pressure pain thresholds from the masseter or temporalis muscles on either the injected side or the opposite side over the 10-day post injection monitoring period. There was also no effect of injections on chewing. CONCLUSION: These findings indicate that, unlike in some rodent models, repeated injection of low pH solutions into jaw muscles of humans fails to induce a period of prolonged muscle hyperalgesia.
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 | 0.005 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".