The effects of incision size on craniofacial nociceptive neuronal excitability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine if incision size influences craniofacial nociceptive neuronal activation (magnitude [BAR] and duration [BAR-dur]) and the development of neuroplastic changes (mechanical activation threshold [MAT], mechanoreceptive field [RF], and spontaneous activity [SA]). Neuronal activity was recorded from trigeminal subnucleus caudalis (Vc)/C1 neurons in 32 halothane-anaesthetized rats. The effects a 30-, 22-, or 14-gauge incision or lidocaine infiltration prior to a 14-gauge incision were evaluated. Incision size significantly influenced BAR-dur (2-way ANOVA, Tukey test, P<0.05) but not BAR (P>0.05) nor the development of neuroplastic changes (Chi-squared tests, P>0.05). Lidocaine pretreatment significantly reduced BAR (2-way ANOVA, Tukey test, P<0.05) and BAR-dur (2-way ANOVA, Tukey test, P<0.05), but did not consistently prevent neuroplastic changes (Fisher Exact tests, P>0.05). These findings suggest that a reduced incision size or the use of local anaesthesia may reduce pain experienced during needle insertion or conservative surgical incision within the craniofacial region.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".