The effects of the steroid androstadienone and pleasant odorants on the mood and pain perception of men and women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We previously found that for both men and women odors influence mood, which in turn influences pain unpleasantness perception. Others showed that the steroid androstadienone modulates mood differently in men and women, improving mood in women and worsening it or leaving it unchanged in men. Based on its dissociable effect on mood, we hypothesized that women exposed to androstadienone would report lower pain unpleasantness than when exposed to the vehicle, while men would show no change or the reverse pattern. Because of the expected beneficial effect of pleasant odors on mood in both men and women, all subjects should report lower pain unpleasantness when exposed to the pleasant odor compared to the unscented air. METHODS: In one session subjects were exposed to: (1) androstadienone diluted in a vehicle while breathing unscented air and (2) androstadienone in vehicle while breathing a pleasant odorant. In another session they were exposed to: (1) vehicle and unscented air and (2) vehicle and a pleasant odorant. Phasic contact heat was used to induce pain. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Planned comparisons confirmed that, in the absence of pain, androstadienone improved mood only in women, while the pleasant odorants improved mood for all subjects. However, these positive mood changes did not persist with the introduction of pain. Consistent with the absence of positive mood changes, pain unpleasantness was not modulated. Unexpectedly, the presence of androstadienone increased perceived pain intensity especially in women, suggesting an effect of androstadienone on pain perception, independent of mood changes. Heightened attentional state may be responsible.
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 | 0.000 |
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".