Upper- and lower-body pain perception during DOMS: the effect of menthol-based topical analgesic application
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Menthol-based analgesic gels have been proven to alleviate delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS) pain perception. The difference in pain pressure threshold (PPT) between the lower vs. upper extremities is not well understood nor is there much research illustrating the effect of the menthol-based analgesic on pain perception between these extremities during DOMS. Thus, the purpose of this study was to compare the upper- and lower-body’s responses to pain 48 hours after DOMS induction and following menthol-based analgesic gel application. Fourteen participants were placed into two groups (placebo and experimental) and each performed 5 sets of 10 repetitions of eccentric contractions of the knee extensors and elbow flexors on an isokinetic dynamometer. PPT measurements were taken via a handheld algometer at baseline, immediately after and 48 hours after the DOMS protocol. After 48 hours the PPT was measured prior to and 15 minutes following gel application and every 5 minutes for 45 minutes thereafter. Statistical analysis revealed a significant difference for PPT in both groups between the knee extensors and elbow flexors (p<0.001). For experimental group both elbow flexors (48%) and knee extensors (26%) showed a decrease in PPT 48 hours after DOMS, but only the elbow flexors significantly reduced (p=0.018). The application of a menthol-based gel to the elbow flexors increased PPT at 30 minutes after gel application until the end of the test (p=0.018). The placebo group showed a significant reduction in their PPT values 48 hours after DOMS in both the elbow flexors (45%) and knee extensors (38%) (p=0.018). Unlike the experimental group the placebo group showed no change in PPT following its application. Pain perception is different in the lower and upper extremities and menthol-based analgesic reduced pain perception during DOMS.
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) | 0.003 | 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".