MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W91393298

The effect of glutamate-evoked masseter muscle pain on the human jaw-stretch reflex differs in men and women.

2003· article· en· W91393298 on OpenAlexaff
Brian E. Cairns, Kelun Wang, James W. Hu, Barry J. Sessle, Lars Arendt‐Nielsen, Peter Svensson

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicTemporomandibular Joint Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJaw jerk reflexReflexMasseter muscleGlutamate receptorMedicineStretch reflexAnesthesiaAnatomyInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: To compare jaw-stretch reflex responses in male and female subjects and to determine whether injection of glutamate into the masseter muscle facilitates these responses in both sexes. METHODS: Jaw-stretch reflex responses were evoked with a muscle stretcher, and pain intensity was scored by 11 men and 13 women before and after the injection of glutamate (1.0 mol/L, 0.2 ml) into the masseter muscle. The subjects rated glutamate-evoked pain intensity on a visual analog scale. RESULTS: Baseline jaw-stretch reflex responses were larger and glutamate injections into the masseter muscle were significantly more painful in women than in men, however, glutamate significantly facilitated jaw-stretch reflex responses in men but not in women. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that there is a significant sex-related difference in human jaw-stretch reflex responses and their modulation by painful stimuli. Since one possible function of facilitated jaw-stretch reflex responses during jaw muscle pain may be to reduce jaw mobility and thus protect against further exacerbation of an existing injury, the finding of a sex-related difference in modulation of jaw-stretch reflex responses may prove to be important in clarifying why the prevalence of temporomandibular disorders is greater in women than in men.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.411

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations74
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicTemporomandibular Joint DisordersFrench-language works237,207