Altered nociceptive behavior and emotional contagion of pain in mouse models of autism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) have altered sensory processing but may ineffectively communicate their experiences. Here, we used a battery of nociceptive behavioral tests to assess sensory alterations in two commonly used mouse models of ASD, BTBR T + Itpr3 tf /J (BTBR), and fragile‐X mental retardation‐1 knockout ( Fmr1 ‐KO) mice. We also asked whether emotional contagion, a primitive form of empathy, was altered in BTBR and Fmr1 KO mice when experiencing pain with a social partner. BTBR mice demonstrated mixed nociceptive responses with hyporesponsivity to mechanical/thermal stimuli and intraplantar injections of formalin and capsaicin while displaying hypersensitivity on the acetic acid test. Fmr1 ‐KO mice were hyposensitive to mechanical stimuli and intraplantar injections of capsaicin and formalin. BTBR and Fmr1 ‐KO mice developed significantly less mechanical allodynia following intraplantar injections of complete Freund's adjuvant, while BTBR mice developed slightly more thermal hyperalgesia. Finally, as measured by the formalin and acetic acid writhing tests, BTBR and Fmr1‐ KO mice did not show emotional contagion of pain. In sum, our findings indicate that depending on the sensation, pain responses may be mixed, which reflects findings in ASD individuals.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".