Responses of Dorsal Spinal Cord Blood Flow to Noxious Mechanical Stimulation of the Skin in Anesthetized Rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In urethane-anesthetized, artificially ventilated rats, alterations in dorsal spinal cord blood flow (SCBF) at the L4-6 level were measured with laser Doppler flowmetry in response to noxious mechanical cutaneous stimulation (pinching) of either a forepaw or a hindpaw. The stimulation was delivered ipsilaterally or contralaterally to the site of blood flow measurement. Pinching of the forepaw or the hindpaw on either side increased mean arterial pressure (MAP) to the same degree. However, the SCBF response to pinching of the ipsilateral hindpaw was significantly greater than that to other stimulations. These responses were not influenced by denervation of the baroreceptors. The responses of SCBF to pinching of the ipsilateral hindpaw persisted both after treatment with phenoxybenzamine and after spinalization at the C1-2 level, whereas the responses to pinching at other sites disappeared. The responses of MAP to stimulation at all four sites became negligible after treatment with phenoxybenzamine and after spinalization at the C1-2 level. These results indicate that noxious mechanical stimulation of the skin produces increases in SCBF via two mechanisms: one is via an elevation of systemic arterial pressure; the other is via a localized spinal mechanism evoked by ipsilateral, segmental inputs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".