Assessment of nociception in acrylamide-induced neuropathy in rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acrylamide was intraperitoneally administered to male Sprague-Dawley rats at four different doses (5, 10, 20 and 30 mg/kg) three times a week for 5 consecutive weeks. Because of motor dysfunction, the 30 mg/kg dose was not used for behavioral pain tests. Clinical status remained good throughout the experiment and no motor deficit was observed at the other doses. We showed that acrylamide administration at low doses and cumulative dose (CD) range of 35-140 mg/kg produced mechanical allodynia and rapid, marked heat (42 degrees C) and cold (10 degrees C) allodynia after tail immersion test. Mechanical and thermal hyperalgesia appeared after higher cumulative doses (70-280 mg/kg), except for cold (4 degrees C) hyperalgesia (20-80 mg/kg). All the modifications persisted throughout all study, except the mechanical hyperalgia. All the cumulative doses tested were lower than those generally reported to induce motor dysfunction (CD>250 mg/kg), confirming that CD may be considered to be a suitable index in assessing neurological signs and suggesting that early detection of acrylamide neurotoxicity would be possible using the sensory tests, especially those for detecting allodynia thresholds.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".