MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980472443 · doi:10.1016/j.pain.2013.04.042

Neurovascular coupling during nociceptive processing in the primary somatosensory cortex of the rat

2013· article· en· W1980472443 on OpenAlexafffund
Renaud Jeffrey‐Gauthier, Jean‐Paul Guillemot, Mathieu Piché

Bibliographic record

VenuePain · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de MontréalUniversité du Québec à MontréalUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFondation Chiropratique du QuébecUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
KeywordsSomatosensory systemNociceptionNeuroscienceStimulationPremovement neuronal activityDiffuse noxious inhibitory controlNoxious stimulusStimulus (psychology)Functional magnetic resonance imagingNeurovascular bundleAnesthesiaMedicineLocal field potentialHemodynamicsPsychologyInternal medicineAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neuroimaging methods such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) have been used extensively to investigate pain-related cerebral mechanisms. However, these methods rely on a tight coupling of neuronal activity to hemodynamic changes. Because pain may be associated with hemodynamic changes unrelated to local neuronal activity (eg, increased mean arterial pressure [MAP]), it is essential to determine whether the neurovascular coupling is maintained during nociceptive processing. In this study, local field potentials (LFP) and cortical blood flow (CBF) changes evoked by electrical stimulation of the left hind paw were recorded concomitantly in the right primary somatosensory cortex (SI) in 15 rats. LFP, CBF, and MAP changes were examined in response to stimulus intensities ranging from 3 to 30 mA. In addition, LFP, CBF, and MAP changes evoked by a 10-mA stimulation were examined during immersion of the tail in non-nociceptive or nociceptive hot water (counter-stimulation). SI neurovascular coupling was altered for stimuli of nociceptive intensities (P<0.001). This alteration was intensity-dependent and was strongly associated with MAP changes (r=0.98, P<0.001). However, when the stimulus intensity was kept constant, SI neurovascular coupling was not significantly affected by nociceptive counter-stimulation (P=0.4), which similarly affected the amplitude of shock-evoked LFP and CBF changes. It remains to be determined whether such neurovascular uncoupling occurs in humans, and whether it also affects other regions usually activated by painful stimuli. These results should be taken into account for accurate interpretation of fMRI studies that involve nociceptive stimuli associated with MAP changes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.738
Threshold uncertainty score0.200

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.211 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePainSame topicPain Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207