The effects of DNIC-type inhibition on temporal summation compared to single pulse processing: Does sex matter?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A few experimental observations have suggested that diffuse noxious inhibitory control (DNIC)-type inhibition acts preferentially on the pain system if this is in a sensitised state, e.g. after slow temporal summation (wind-up). However, firm evidence is still missing. Furthermore, sex-related factors, which seem to affect temporal summation as well as DNIC effects, might thus also modulate the interaction of these two processes. To answer these questions, we investigated 40 young and pain-free subjects (20 female and 20 male). The conditioning stimulus in our DNIC paradigm was realized by immersion of the hand into a water tub containing either 42 degrees C (non-painful heat) or 46 degrees C (painful heat) hot water. The test stimuli were either single pulses or series of five pulses (0.5 Hz repetition frequency) produced by a pressure algometer. The VAS ratings for the last stimulus in the series were significantly higher than for the single pulse (temporal summation). The ratings were significantly reduced by the 42 degrees C conditioning stimulus and even more by the 46 degrees C conditioning stimulus, suggesting DNIC-like inhibition. This was equally true both for the single pulse and for the series of pulses. Sex differences were not observed for temporal summation, DNIC inhibition or for the interaction of the two processes, although women exhibited significantly lower pressure pain thresholds and higher ratings for the tonic heat stimuli. In conclusion, DNIC-type inhibition apparently does not preferentially act on a sensitised pain system after slow temporal summation. Considering the sex of the subjects does not change this insight.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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 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".