Conditioned pain modulation in rodents can feature hyperalgesia or hypoalgesia depending on test stimulus intensity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The counterirritation phenomenon known as conditioned pain modulation, or diffuse noxious inhibitory control in animals, is of increasing interest due to its utility in predicting chronic pain and treatment response. It features considerable interindividual variability, with large subsets of pain patients and even normal volunteers exhibiting hyperalgesia rather than hypoalgesia during or immediately after receiving a conditioning stimulus. We observed that mice undergoing tonic inflammatory pain in the abdominal cavity (the conditioning stimulus) display hyperalgesia, not hypoalgesia, to noxious thermal stimulation (the test stimulus) applied to the hindpaw. In a series of parametric studies, we show that this hyperalgesia can be reliably observed using multiple conditioning stimuli (acetic acid and orofacial formalin), test stimuli (hindpaw and forepaw-withdrawal, tail-withdrawal, hot-plate, and von Frey tests) and genotypes (CD-1, DBA/2, and C57BL/6 mice and Sprague-Dawley rats). Although the magnitude of the hyperalgesia is dependent on the intensity of the conditioning stimulus, we find that the direction of effect is dependent on the effective test stimulus intensity, with lower-intensity stimuli leading to hyperalgesia and higher-intensity stimuli leading to hypoalgesia.
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) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".