Acid-induced experimental muscle pain and hyperalgesia with single and repeated infusion in human forearm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Acid has long been thought to play an important role in the pain process. Animal study showed that repeated acid stimulation induced central sensitization. The purpose of the study is to investigate muscle pain and hyperalgesia evoked by intramuscular infusion of saline at different pH levels, and to compare the effect of a single versus repeated acid infusions. METHODS: Twenty healthy subjects received infusions of buffered saline (pH 5.0, 6.0, and 7.4) into the brachioradialis muscle in a randomized order. Twelve of the subjects received repeated infusions. The subjects rated the pain intensity on visual analogue scale (VAS). Thermal pain sensitivity, and pressure pain threshold (PPT) were assessed in both arm before, during, immediately after, one hour after, and one day after the infusion. A McGill Pain Questionnaire and pain mapping were completed after each infusion. RESULTS: The pH 5 solution caused significantly higher pain and larger areas than pH 6.0 or 7.4. The local PPTs were significantly decreased (hyperalgesia) during and immediately after infusion of all three solutions. No significant differences were detected between the first and second infusion. CONCLUSIONS: The intensity of acid-induced muscle pain is pH-dependent. All three solutions induced pressure hyperalgesia at the infusion site. Repeated infusions did not induce increased pain or prolonged hyperalgesia as compared with a single injection. Human intramuscular acidic saline infusion could not produce chronic pain model. IMPLICATIONS: The acid-induced pain model may reflect the early stage responses to tissue injury of clinical conditions. Repeated intramuscular acidic saline injection model of prolonged hyperalgesia in rodents could not be translated into a human for modelling chronic musculoskeletal pain.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".