Nociceptive Sensation and Sensitivity Evoked from Human Cornea and Conjunctiva Stimulated by CO<sub>2</sub>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare sensation and sensitivity evoked from human cornea and conjunctiva stimulated by CO2. METHODS: Twenty healthy participants were recruited for the study. Central corneal and temporal conjunctival chemical sensation and sensitivity of only one eye of each subject were evaluated. Air mixed with different concentrations of CO(2) was delivered by a modified Belmonte pneumatic esthesiometer. The ascending method of limits was used to determine the sensitivity and subjects were required to characterize the sensation at threshold. RESULTS: The sensations evoked by CO(2) in the cornea and conjunctiva were stinging or burning. The sensation evoked by mechanical stimulation was that of irritation. The corneal and conjunctival chemical thresholds were 31% +/- 2% and 54% +/- 5% CO(2) (mean +/- SE), respectively. The corneal and conjunctival mechanical thresholds were 80 +/- 6 and 140 +/- 10 mL/min (mean +/- SE), respectively. The corneal sensitivity was significantly higher for both mechanical and chemical stimuli (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that CO(2) stimulates similar corneal and conjunctival nociceptors in that the interpretations were the same (i.e., nociceptive). The central cornea had a higher sensitivity to CO(2) than the temporal conjunctiva, which may reflect a different peripheral innervation, such as different nerve density or different receptor characteristics. Sensations evoked by mechanical and chemical stimulation were different, which suggests that at the peripheral level, the two modalities stimulate two different kinds of molecular receptors or channels and that this information is somehow retained within the nociceptive system.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".