MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987653044 · doi:10.1037/0735-7044.120.2.463

Differences in the sensations of cold on the anterior torso of control and spinal-cord-transected individuals.

2006· article· en· W1987653044 on OpenAlexaff
Robert W. Dykes, Fatima Saddiki-Traki, Nicole Tremblay, F. Boureau, X. Morel-Fatio

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioral Neuroscience · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpinal cordSomatosensory systemTorsoSensory systemStimulus (psychology)MedicineCordSomatosensory evoked potentialStimulus modalityAnatomyPsychologyAudiologyNeuroscienceAnesthesiaSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Application of cold stimuli to the sentient portion of the anterior torso of 12 spinal-cord-transected individuals (patients) and to comparable sites of 11 control participants showed that thresholds are lower for women than for men and that the difference between the sexes is maintained following spinal-cord transection. Patients of both sexes were more sensitive to cold stimuli than were controls. Estimates of stimulus intensity showed that participants reliably distinguished the 3 cool stimuli but that control women offered significantly larger estimates than control men. Spinal-cord transection produced an increase in the intensity of the sensations in women and a reduction in men. The changes in sensory perception that follow spinal-cord injury extend throughout the somatosensory system and involve all modalities. These changes cannot be explained as a simple release from inhibition.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations3
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBehavioral NeuroscienceSame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207