Women experience greater heat pain adaptation and habituation than men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is not clear how males and females cope with pain over time and how sensory and emotional qualities fluctuate from moment to moment, although studies of pain at discrete time points suggest that women are more pain sensitive than men. Therefore, we developed a new broader-based pain model that incorporates a temporally continuous assessment of multiple pain dimensions across sensory and affective dimensions, and normalized peak pain intensity to unmask sex differences that may otherwise be confounded by inter-individual variability in pain sensitivity. We obtained continuous ratings of pain, burning, sharp, stinging, cutting, and annoyance evoked by repeated prolonged noxious heat stimuli in 32 subjects. Strikingly, females reported more pain than males at the outset of the first exposure to pain, but then experienced less pain and annoyance than males as a painful stimulus was sustained and with repeated stimulation. Patterns of pain and annoyance attenuation in women resembled the attenuation of sharp, stinging and cutting sensations, whereas patterns of pain and annoyance in men resembled burning sensations. Taken together, these data demonstrate a prominent sex difference in the time course of pain. Notably only females demonstrate adaptation and habituation that allow them to experience less pain over time. These findings suggest a sexual dichotomy in mechanisms underlying pain intensity and annoyance that could involve specific quality-linked mechanisms. Importantly, temporal processing of pain differs between males and females when adjusted for sex differences in pain sensitivity. Our findings provide insight into sex differences in tonic and possibly chronic pains.
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 | 0.002 | 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".