Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research has demonstrated that although women may find post-operative pain more intense than men, males are more disturbed than females by low levels of pain that last over time. In these studies, females had a tendency to rate the intensity of pain higher than males, but males had stronger affective responses following the surgical placement of intra-oral implants. However, these findings have not been investigated in an experimental setting. This experiment examined the pain responses of 20 healthy subjects (10 males, 10 females), who were subjected to capsaicin-induced pain on the face and ankle (on separate sessions). During the experiment, all subjects rated their pain intensity, unpleasantness, and anxiety on visual analog scales (VAS). In addition, throughout the experiment, heart rate was monitored every five minutes and mood was assessed once before and after the experiment. Finally, subjects also completed the McGill Pain Questionnaires (MPQ) once at the end of every session. Results revealed that although there were generally no statistically significant sex differences in the pain ratings during the experiment, there was a sex * time interaction with males displaying increasing anxiety scores over time with the capsaicin patch on the face while the anxiety scores of females decreased over time with the capsaicin patch on the face (F = 1.64, P = 0.02). Also, there was a tendency for the relative unpleasantness (unpleasantness/intensity ratio) to be greater for males than females over time on the face (F = 3.43, P = 0.08). Males and females did not differ in both the mean number of words chosen and the pain rating index of the MPQ for all categories. In addition, there were no sex differences for heart rate and mood for both the ankle and face regions throughout the experiment. Taken together, these results replicate previous findings that men may find low levels of pain more disturbing than women.
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".