Human Salivary Concentrations of Brain Derived Neurotrophic Factor Correlates With Subjective Pain Intensity Associated With Initial Orthodontic Therapy.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Current study aimed to evaluate presence & concentration of salivary molecular pain biomarkers Calcitonin Gene Related Peptide(CGRP) and Brain-Derived Neurotrophic Factor(BDNF) during initial stages of orthodontic treatment and correlation with subjective pain scales, Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Verbal Rating Scale (VRS) and McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ). Consented, healthy-pain free patients(n=40) undergoing orthodontic therapy, having moderate crowding with pre-molar extraction were recruited. Unstimulated whole saliva was collected and stored at -80oC in cryotubes. Levels of CGRP & BDNF in salivary samples was assessed by enzyme–linked immunosorbent assay. Samples were collected under stipulated 5 time periods using saliva collection tube by passive drooling method: immediately after bonding but before wire placement(T0-baseline), after 24 hours(T1), 48 hours(T2), 72 hours(T3) & 168 hours(T4) after wire placement. Consolidated subjective pain scales were administered concurrently. Regression value(R2>0.9) confirmed BDNF & CGRP in saliva. Significant change was observed from baseline to 168 hrs in all subjective parameters(p<0.05). CGRP did not correlate with subjective pain scales statistically(p>0.05). BDNF levels correlated with all the subjective pain scales, NRS(T3-p=0.0092&T4-p=0.0064), VRS(T3-p=0.0112&T4-p=0.0500), VAS(T3-p=0.0092 &T4-p=0.0064) &MPQ (T1-p=0.0255). Mean BDNF & median subjective pain scale graphs were similar. BDNF correlated with all the subjective pain scales warranting further investigation. Trial registration: Clinical Trial Registry - India (CTRI) Reg No: CTRI/2018/12/016571; Registered 10th December, 2018 (10/12/2018) prospectively; http://ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/pmaindet2.php?trialid=29640&EncHid=&userName=Dr%20Sagar%20S%20Bhat
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) | 0.002 | 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".