Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: A review of the literature was conducted to assess the association between oxytocin (OT) and pain. METHODS: PsychInfo, PubMed, and Medline (EBSCO) research databases were searched for peer-reviewed articles written between 1950 and 2012. Of a total of 1166 articles returned, 50 (9 human, 33 animal, and 8 spinal cord samples) met full inclusion criteria and were included in the review. RESULTS: OT had a reliable effect as defined by increasing pain tolerance in 29 of 33 animal studies reviewed. This effect persisted across central and peripheral modes of administration and type of noxious stimulus used (eg, heat, electric). The results suggest that OT acts as an analgesic for acute pain in animals. Preliminary research with humans offers consistent evidence to suggest that OT decreases pain sensitivity, though the reliability and stability of such effects cannot yet be determined. Although the findings are encouraging, there is a need for methodologically rigorous work in humans where OT is administered centrally. DISCUSSION: Further research seems to be warranted as the existence of biologically and psychologically plausible mechanisms linking OT and pain have been well supported using animal models with limited but encouraging human research. Implications and recommendations are discussed. Findings from this research may inform therapeutic methods for the management of pain.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".