Sex-Related Effects of Adrenergic Drugs on Conditioned Pain Modulation: A Randomized Controlled Cross-Over Double-Blind Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Endogenous pain inhibition can be investigated using conditioned pain modulation (CPM). CPM efficacy has been reported to be influenced by various factors, such as gender and cardiovascular (autonomic) activity. The aim of this study is to describe the effect of pharmacological manipulations of autonomic activity on CPM efficacy. Methods: Thirty healthy participants were enrolled to assess CPM efficacy in 4 experimental sessions. The first session consisted of the determination of baseline CPM effectiveness. The three following sessions were performed in a randomized order and consisted of the injection of (1) esmolol, (2) ephedrine, or (3) placebo, before the conditioning stimulus. Pain intensity induced by using a contact heat stimulation thermode was compared before and after a cold-pressure conditioning stimulus to evaluate CPM effectiveness. Results: Our results show that inhibiting sympathetic nervous activity with esmolol did not have a significant effect on CPM. Conversely, enhancing sympathetic nervous activity with ephedrine increased CPM effectiveness in healthy women but decreased it in men. Conclusions: Increasing sympathetic activity with adrenergic agonists, such as ephedrine, could improve CPM effectiveness in women. It will be interesting to verify if the same results are present in patients suffering from chronic pain and if adrenergic agonists could have better therapeutic effects in women showing reduced CPM effectiveness.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".