Vascular and psychophysical effects of topical capsaicin application to orofacial tissues.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To characterize and contrast human sensory and vascular changes produced by topical application of the algesic chemical capsaicin to the glabrous lips and tongue. METHODS: Applications of 1% capsaicin or vehicle cream to the glabrous lips and tongue were randomized between two two-trial sessions. The capsaicin trial followed the vehicle trial for each session. Before and 5, 15, and 30 minutes after capsaicin or vehicle cream application, six parameters were recorded from the glabrous lips or the tongue dorsum: (1) burning pain intensity, as measured on a visual analog scale; (2) burning pain area, as indicated by subjects on an orofacial drawing; (3) mechanical sensitivity, as measured by a von Frey filament; (4) visual flare; (5) blood flow and temperature, as measured by laser-Doppler imaging and thermography, respectively; and (6) areas of increased temperature (hot spots), as calculated by a digital tracer from the thermographs. Data were analyzed by ANOVAs and Pearson's correlations. RESULTS: Compared to vehicle application, capsaicin elicited burning pain, increases in blood flow and temperature, but no change in mechanical sensitivity in the glabrous lips or tongue. Greater increases in blood flow and temperature paralleled more intense burning pain and larger areas of perceived pain for the lips compared to the tongue. The location of distinct areas of increased temperature within the orofacial area differed between the capsaicin-lip and capsaicin-tongue trials. CONCLUSION: The several differences between these responses to noxious stimulation of the glabrous lips and tongue may have implications for examinations of orofacial somatosensory functions.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".