Association between sensitisation and pain-related behaviours in an experimental canine model of osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evaluation of nociceptive sensitisation in canine osteoarthritis studies has been poorly reported, or even related to other clinical symptoms. In 16 dogs, peak vertical force (PVF), subjective pain assessment using 3 scales, sympathetic stress response with electrodermal activity (EDA) measurement, and behavioural changes with video analysis and telemetered motor activity were quantified at baseline (D-7), and 28 and 56 days post transection of the cranial cruciate ligament. As markers of central sensitisation, selected spinal cord biomarkers (substance P and transthyretin) were quantified at D56. Electrical withdrawal thresholds on the stifle and the tail were measured as indicative of peripheral and central quantitative sensory testing (QST) sensitisation, respectively. The effects of vehicle administration (n=8) were compared with tiludronate (2mg/kg subcutaneously, q2 week, starting at D0) administration. Generalized estimated equations tested the association between the behavioural and physiological methods and QST sensitisation, and therefore the sensitivity of the methods for detecting treatment efficacy. Compared to tiludronate, at D56, vehicle-treated dogs had increased spinal substance P (P=0.01), concomitant decreased transthyretin (P=0.02), and (compared to baseline) demonstrated peripheral and central QST sensitisation, which was not present for tiludronate. Only PVF, the spontaneous behaviour "walking with full weight-bearing," and EDA were associated with occurrence of QST sensitisation and indicated significant tiludronate analgesic efficacy after inclusion of central QST sensitisation as a predictor variable in the statistical model. This study establishes the strong interest to implement QST as a predictor of canine osteoarthritis pain symptoms explained by pain sensitisation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".