The Magnitude of Mechanical Allodynia in a Rodent Model of Lumbar Radiculopathy is Dependent on Strain and Sex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: This study examined the differences in tactile hypersensitivity across 6 different strains of male mice, and between male and female rats of 3 different strains in a rodent model of low back pain associated with lumbar radiculopathy. OBJECTIVE: We investigated the possibility that differences in tactile allodynia following the same nerve root injury are affected by genotype and sex in rodents. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Low back pain associated with radiculopathy affects countless people throughout the world, encompassing a wide range of individual pain susceptibility. The roles of genetics and sex on differences in nociceptive sensitivities following lumbar nerve root injury have yet to be fully characterized. METHODS: Six strains of mice (BALB/cJ, CBA/J, C57BL/6J, 129P3/J, C3H/HeJ, and C58/J; all males) and male and female Sprague Dawley, Holtzman, and Long-Evans rats underwent a lumbar nerve root injury followed by assessment of tactile allodynia. RESULTS: The most sensitive mouse strains following nerve root injury were: 129P3/J, C58/J, and BALB/cJ; and the less sensitive strains were: C57BL/6J, C3H/HeJ, and CBA/J. Female Sprague Dawley and Long-Evans rats displayed increased hypersensitivity following nerve root injury compared to males. No sex differences were observed in Holtzman rats. CONCLUSIONS: Different mouse strains, and male and female rats that are exposed to identical nerve root injuries have diverse levels of tactile hypersensitivity, supporting the hypothesis that genetic factors and sex play a key role in radicular pain. Our results correlate with data compiled in identical mouse and rat strains after L5-L6 nerve ligation, suggesting that the precise nature of the injury is not relevant to the inheritance of neuropathic symptom sensitivity.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".