Comparison of bromazepam and ibuprofen influence on tooth pulp-evoked potentials in humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction/Objective. Somatosensory evoked potentials are a neurophysiological tool for testing the effects of drugs in humans and animals. The aim of this study was to estimate the way that bromazepam and ibuprofen had on tooth pulp-evoked potentials (TPEPs) after non-painful stimuli, as well as to detect possible differences in this activity. Methods. Sixty young healthy subjects were included in the study. They were arranged into three groups: ibuprofen, bromazepam, and placebo. To record TPEPs response, dental pulp were electrically stimulated through intact enamel with non-painful stimuli. For stimulation and registration we used Xltek Protektor 32 system, software EPWorks, version 5.0 (Natus Medical Incorporated, Oakville, ON, Canada). The experiment consisted of two testing sessions. Five recordings were performed in each session. The first test session was before, and the second was 45 minutes after administration of a single dose of the ibuprofen (400 mg), bromazepam (1.5 mg) or placebo. Results. The results of the present study exhibit that both ibuprofen and bromazepam significantly increased all the latencies; ibuprofen decreased amplitudes of all the waves except the first one (p < 0.05), and bromazepam decreased amplitudes of all the waves except the first one (p < 0.05); placebo did not modified TPEPs waves (p > 0.05). Additionally, there were no significant differences in influence on TPEPs between bromazepam and ibuprofen (p > 0.05). Conclusion. Our study showed that both bromazepam and ibuprofen had the same influence on TPEPs after non-painful stimuli. That indicates that anxiolytic dose of bromazepam affects neurotransmission in the same manner as non-opioid analgesics ibuprofen.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".