MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041619289 · doi:10.4236/jbbs.2013.31002

Assessing the Analgesic Effects of Sucrose to Cold Pressor Pain in Human Adults

2013· article· en· W2041619289 on OpenAlexafffund
Michele E. Mercer, Mark D. Holder

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Behavioral and Brain Science · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British ColumbiaMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPalatabilityAnalgesicCold pressor testIngestionVisual analogue scaleAnesthesiaSucroseMorphineMedicineInternal medicineChemistryFood scienceBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous studies report that the ingestion of highly concentrated sweet solutions produces a morphine-like analgesia in rats, human infants, and in adult males. To determine whether sweet-induced analgesia occurs with more commonly consumed substances, 30 adult males (Mage = 22.4 years) were exposed to a cold pressor test and pain responsivity was assessed both before and after consuming either an 8% sucrose solution, water, or nothing. Between-groups comparisons revealed that relative to the Sucrose or Nothing groups, the Water group showed increased pain tolerance. Neither pain thresholds nor ratings of pain intensity and unpleasantness on a visual analogue scale differed among groups. The results support previous findings in both humans and animals that the palatability or hedonic value of food or drink may be the key predictor of its analgesic effect.

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.335 · 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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Behavioral and Brain ScienceSame topicPediatric Pain Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207