MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Sex differences in pain

2015· review· en· W2344980370 on OpenAlex
Josiane C.S. Mapplebeck, Simon Beggs, Michael W. Salter

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenuePain · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHospital for Sick Children
FundersMedical Research CouncilCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMicrogliaDisinhibitionNeuroscienceNeuropathic painPurinergic receptorMedicineNociceptionNeurotrophic factorsNociceptorSpinal cordReceptorPsychologyInternal medicineInflammation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Substantial evidence has implicated microglia in neuropathic pain. After peripheral nerve injury, microglia in the spinal cord proliferate and increase cell-surface expression of the purinergic receptor P2X4. Activation of P2X4 receptors results in release of brain-derived neurotrophic factor, which acts on neurons to produce disinhibition of dorsal horn neurons which transmit nociceptive information to the brain. Disinhibition of these neurons produces pain hypersensitivity, a hallmark symptom of neuropathic pain. However, elucidating this microglia-neuronal signalling pathway was based on studies using only male rodents. Recent evidence has shown that the role of microglia in pain is sexually dimorphic. Despite similar microglia proliferation in the dorsal horn in both sexes, females do not upregulate P2X4Rs and use a microglia-independent pathway to mediate pain hypersensitivity. Instead, adaptive immune cells, possibly T cells, may mediate pain hypersensitivity in female mice. This profound sex difference highlights the importance of including subjects of both sexes in preclinical 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.798

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.131
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.232 · 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