Dura-evoked neck muscle activity involves purinergic and N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor mechanisms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have previously demonstrated that noxious stimulation of craniofacial tissues including the frontal dura reflexly evokes significant increases in neck muscle electromyographic (EMG) activity. The primary aim of this study was to determine whether purinergic receptor mechanisms may be involved in these EMG effects, and whether N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor processes modulate the purinergic mechanisms. Application of the P2X1, P2X3 and P2X2/3 receptor agonist α,β-methylene ATP (but not vehicle) to the dural surface evoked a significant (P<0.05) increase in ipsilateral neck EMG activity that could be suppressed by dural or intrathecal application of the selective P2X1, P2X3 and P2X2/3 receptor antagonist 2',3'-O-(2,4,6-trinitrophenyl) ATP (TNP-ATP) but not by vehicle; the intrathecal application of 2-amino-5-phosphonopentanoic acid, an NMDA receptor antagonist, also significantly reduced the neck EMG activity evoked by dural application of α,β-methylene ATP. These data suggest that purinergic receptor mechanisms contribute to the increased neck activity that can be reflexly evoked by noxious stimulation of the frontal dura, and that NMDA as well as purinergic receptor mechanisms in the medulla may modulate these purinergic-related effects.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".