MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4378070707 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0284769

Chocolate intake and muscle pain sensation: A randomized experimental study

2023· article· en· W4378070707 on OpenAlexaff
Alexandra Hajati, Mario Brondani, Lina Angerstig, Victoria Klein, Linda Liljeblad, Essam Ahmed Al‐Moraissi, Sofia Louca Jounger, Bruna Brondani, Nikolaos Christidis

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDark chocolateHypertonic salineAnalysis of varianceSensationSalineAnesthesiaCrossover studyFood sciencePlaceboInternal medicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Chocolate, as a cocoa-derived product rich in flavanols, has been used for medical and anti-inflammatory purposes. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate if the ingestion of different percentages of cocoa products affects the experimentally induced pain caused by intramuscular hypertonic saline injections in the masseter muscle of healthy men and women. METHODS: This experimental randomized, double-blind, and controlled study included 15 young, healthy, and pain-free men and 15 age-matched women and involved three visits with at least a 1-week washout. Pain was induced twice at each visit with intramuscular injections of 0.2 mL hypertonic saline (5%), before and after intake of one of the different chocolate types: white (30% cocoa content), milk (34% cocoa content), and dark (70% cocoa content). Pain duration, pain area, peak pain, and pressure pain threshold (PPT) were assessed every fifth minute after each injection, up until 30 min after the initial injection. Descriptive and inferential statistics were performed using IBM® SPSS (Version 27); significance level was set to p<0.05. RESULTS: This study showed that intake of chocolate, no matter the type, reduced the induced pain intensity significantly more than no intake of chocolate (p<0.05, Tukey test). There were no differences between the chocolate types. Further, men showed a significantly greater pain reduction than women after intake of white chocolate (p<0.05, Tukey test). No other differences between pain characteristics or sexes were revealed. CONCLUSION: Intake of chocolate before a painful stimulus had a pain-reducing effect no matter the cocoa concentration. The results indicate that perhaps it is not the cocoa concentration (e.g., flavanols) alone that explains the positive effect on pain, but likely a combination of preference and taste-experience. Another possible explanation could be the composition of the chocolate, i.e. the concentration of the other ingredients such as sugar, soy, and vanilla. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05378984.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicPain Mechanisms and Treatments→French-language works237,207→