Treatment of Chronic Intractable Neuropathetic Pain with Dronabinol: Case Report of Two Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of dronabinol for the treatment of neuropathic pain refractory to previous treatment. METHODS: We studied the response (reduction of pain intensity and functional improvement) to dronabinol (5 mg/day to 25 mg/day) in two adolescents with neuropathic pain and depression refractory to previous treatments over two and five years, respectively. RESULTS: Reduction in pain intensity (45%) was achieved in patient 2 and was unchanged in patient 1. Functional improvement was markedly increased in terms of academic performance, mood and sleep in both patients over four to five months, without major adverse effects. While these improvements dissipated over time, the patients were more reconnected with rehabilitation and focused less on the intrusiveness of their pain problem in their every day lives. CONCLUSIONS: Dronabinol appeared to be effective in improving pain affect and psychosocial functioning in the treatment of refractory neuropathic pain and may be considered as an adjuvant medication in the rehabilitation process. Well-controlled placebo studies are required for further evaluation.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".