Recombinant Hirudin as Anticoagulant during Cardiopulmonary Bypass
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Capsaicin-induced Pain and Tourniquet ConstrictionTo the Editor:-Recently, Byas-Smith et al. 1 reported that tourniquet constriction expands and exacerbates pain during intradermal injection of capsaicin in humans.The underlying mechanism was unclear.It is suggested herein that excitation of paravascular nociceptors is involved in expansion of pain.Capsaicin has been shown to evoke pain from skin, 2 muscle, 3 and paravascular tissue, but not from veins. 4 In the latter study, one of the authors had a disconcerting experience.Capsaicin was perfused through a vascularly isolated hand vein segment to test capsaicin for its property to excite vascular nociceptors.It definitively did not, but strong pain occurred distant from the perfusion site and spread to the entire forearm.In fear of spreading pain to the entire body, a tourniquet was installed quickly to the upper arm, which, however, increased pain further, up to an unbearable intensity.It was determined that capsaicin solution had drained via a previously unnoticed side branch of the isolated vein segment into the venous system.From there, capsaicin apparently had gained access to the paravascular space (capsaicin does not evoke pain in veins).The substantial increase in capsaicin-induced pain during tourniquet inflation is unknown.A recruitment of myelinated fibers during ischemia has been discussed; 5 however, fostering by venous congestion of transendothelial crossing of capsaicin to the paravascular tissue also may play a role.Thus, the spread of capsaicin from the site of application to the paravascular space may have contributed, at least in part, to the observations made by Byas-Smith et al.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".