An investigation into the test-retest reliability of the pain response to hypertonic saline injections and the impact of added muscle contraction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Aims: Intramuscular Hypertonic Saline (HS) injections induce pain that resembles exercise-induced pain. The reliability and the impact that parallel exercise may have on this pain sensation is unestablished. Therefore, the aims of this research were to assess the test-retest reliability of this model's pain response and the influence of additional muscle contractions to the pain experience, in terms of both Pain Intensity (PI) and Pain Quality (PQ). Methodology: 8 male and 6 female participants (25 ± 5 years, 172.9 ± 8.5 cm, 71.9 ± 12.7 kg) completed the two studies. Study 1.1 assessed test-retest reliability with 3 separate visits, in which 1 ml of 5.85% HS was injected into the right vastus lateralis and differences in PI and PQ were measured. In Study 1.2, participants attended 3 separate visits, where they completed an isometric exercise task with 3 separate 10-second contractions at different intensities (10%/15%/20%). This was done with either HS, a placebo or no injection as control. Results: Study 1.1: Intraclass Correlation Coefficient scores for all PI measures indicated at least 'moderate' to 'good' test-retest reliability (0.68 - 0.814). Cronbach's Alpha scores for all PQ measures indicated 'acceptable' to 'good' test-retest reliability (0.806 - 0.933), except for the affective dimension (0.397 - 0.601). Study 1.2: Paired samples t-tests revealed no differences between exercise and rest, for any of the PI measures or PQ measures, except for the Present Pain Index (PPI) of the Long-form McGill Pain Questionnaire (P = 0.048). ANOVA analyses revealed no differences in PI or PQ measures between contraction intensities. Discussion: In Summary, HS provides a 'moderate' to 'good' reliable pain response, except for the affective dimension of pain. PI response is not affected by the addition of exercise or exercise intensity. PQ response is only affected in terms of different descriptive words, when exercise is introduced.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".