Reproducible and fully automated testing of nocifensive behavior in mice
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pain in rodents is often inferred from their withdrawal from noxious stimulation. Threshold stimulus intensity or response latency is used to quantify pain sensitivity. This usually involves applying stimuli by hand and measuring responses by eye, which limits reproducibility and throughput. We describe a device that standardizes and automates pain testing by providing computer-controlled aiming, stimulation, and response measurement. Optogenetic and thermal stimuli are applied using blue and infrared light, respectively. Precise mechanical stimulation is also demonstrated. Reflectance of red light is used to measure paw withdrawal with millisecond precision. We show that consistent stimulus delivery is crucial for resolving stimulus-dependent variations in withdrawal and for testing with sustained stimuli. Moreover, substage video reveals "spontaneous" behaviors for consideration alongside withdrawal metrics to better assess the pain experience. The entire process was automated using machine learning. RAMalgo (reproducible automated multimodal algometry) improves the standardization, comprehensiveness, and throughput of preclinical pain testing.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it