From Venom to Pain Research: A Novel Use of a Scorpaenidae Venom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The algesic properties of nocitoxin--a single monomeric, soluble protein responsible for significant algesia--were assessed through human bioassay to gauge nocitoxin's potential for use as a clinical pain stimulus. The hypothesis guiding this study stated that subjects tested with crude bullrout venom or nocitoxin will report experience of pain consistent with chemically induced nociception. To test this hypothesis, sterile solutions of crude bullrout venom, nocitoxin, and pooled nonalgesic proteins were applied to the volar aspect of the forearm of human volunteers in a single-blind study. The resultant pain experiences were recorded using a visual analogue scale and a modified version of the McGill pain questionnaire. Data were assessed for significance using multivariate analysis. Pain responses to crude venom and nocitoxin were significantly greater than pain responses to negative controls (visual anologue scale (VAS), P = 0.001; McGill P = 0.01). Bullrout venom and nocitoxin elicit a similar quality and intensity of pain and represent sensitive, measurable, reproducible stimuli in the absence of observable tissue injury. Therefore, nocitoxin may serveas a suitable stimulus for clinical pain research.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".