MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046288735 · doi:10.1097/wnr.0b013e328336eecb

Central sensitization in medullary dorsal horn involves gap junctions and hemichannels

2010· article· en· W2046288735 on OpenAlexafffund
Chen Yu Chiang, Zhaohui Li, Jonathan O. Dostrovsky, Barry J. Sessle

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroreport · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute of Dental and Craniofacial ResearchCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsCarbenoxoloneSensitizationNeuroscienceNociceptionPurinergic receptorGap junctionGlutamatergicMedullary cavityNociceptorFrench hornCentral nervous systemCentral sensitizationAnatomyMedicineBiologyGlutamate receptorInternal medicineCell biologyReceptorPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Central sensitization is a fundamental mechanism contributing to acute and chronic pain conditions. Our previous studies have documented a glutamatergic, purinergic and glial-dependent central sensitization that can be induced in rat medullary dorsal horn nociceptive neurons by mustard oil application to the tooth pulp. This study showed that carbenoxolone, a potent gap junction and hemichannel blocker, completely blocked all parameters of mustard oil-induced central sensitization tested in functionally identified medullary dorsal horn nociceptive neurons. These results represent the first evidence suggesting that gap junctions and hemichannels may have a critical role in mediating central sensitization in dorsal horn nociceptive neurons and may account for the spread as well as development of central sensitization.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 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

Citations26
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroreportSame topicPain Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207