Sex-related differences in response to masseteric injections of glutamate and nerve growth factor in healthy human participants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The neurophysiological mechanisms underlying NGF-induced masseter muscle sensitization and sex-related differences in its effect are not well understood in humans. Therefore, this longitudinal cohort study aimed to investigate the effect of NGF injection on the density and expression of substance P, NMDA-receptors and NGF by the nerve fibers in the human masseter muscle, to correlate expression with pain characteristics, and to determine any possible sex-related differences in these effects of NGF. The magnitude of NGF-induced mechanical sensitization and pain during oral function was significantly greater in women than in men (P < 0.050). Significant positive correlations were found between nerve fiber expression of NMDA-receptors and peak pain intensity (r s = 0.620, P = 0.048), and expression of NMDA-receptors by putative nociceptors and change in temporal summation pain after glutamate injection (r s = 0.561, P = 0.003). In women, there was a significant inverse relationship between the degree of NGF-induced mechanical sensitization and the change in nerve fiber expression of NMDA-receptors alone (r s = − 0.659, P = 0.013), and in combination with NGF (r s = − 0.764, P = 0.001). In conclusion, women displayed a greater magnitude of NGF-induced mechanical sensitization that also was associated with nerve fibers expression of NMDA-receptors, when compared to men. The present findings suggest that, in women, increased peripheral NMDA-receptor expression could be associated with masseter muscle pain sensitivity.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".