MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042184452 · doi:10.2147/jpr.s26367

Changes in functional properties of A-type but not C-type sensory neurons in vivo in a rat model of peripheral neuropathy

2012· article· en· W2042184452 on OpenAlexaff
James L. Henry, Zhu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pain Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDorsal root ganglionNeuroscienceSensory systemNerve conduction velocitySensory neuronReceptive fieldNeuropathic painNociceptionMechanoreceptorElectrophysiologyPeripheralIn vivoGanglionMedicineBiologyInternal medicineReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare primary sensory neurons in controls and in an animal neuropathic pain model in order to understand which types of neurons undergo changes associated with peripheral neuropathy. On the basis of intracellular recordings in vivo from somata, L4 sensory dorsal root ganglion neurons were categorized according to action potential configuration, conduction velocity, and receptive field properties to mechanical stimuli. METHODS: Intracellular recordings were made from functionally identified dorsal root ganglion neurons in vivo in the Mosconi and Kruger animal model of peripheral neuropathic pain. RESULTS: In this peripheral neuropathy model, a specific population of Aβ-fiber low threshold mechanoreceptor neurons, which respond normally to innocuous mechanical stimuli, exhibited differences in action potential configuration and conduction velocity when compared with control animals. No abnormal conduction velocity, action potential shapes, or tactile sensitivity of C-fiber neurons were encountered. CONCLUSION: This study provides evidence for defining a potential role of Aβ-fiber low threshold mechanoreceptor neurons that might contribute to peripheral neuropathic 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.265
Threshold uncertainty score0.310

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.202
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.155 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations25
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pain ResearchSame topicPain Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207