MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Understanding chronic inflammatory and neuropathic pain

2012· article· en· W1956546894 on OpenAlexaff
Jane P. Hughes, Iain P. Chessell, Richard Malamut, Martin Perkins, Miroslav Bačkonja, Ralf Baron, John T. Farrar, Mark J. Field, Robert W. Gereau, Ian Gilron, Stephen B. McMahon, Frank Porreca, Bob A. Rappaport, Frank L. Rice, Laura K. Richman, Märta Segerdahl, David A. Seminowicz, Linda R. Watkins, Stephen G. Waxman, Katja Wiech, Clifford J. Woolf

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityAstraZeneca (Canada)
FundersWellcome Trust
KeywordsNeuropathic painChronic painMedicineConversationClinical PracticeAlternative medicineIntensive care medicinePhysical therapyPsychologyPharmacologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This meeting report highlights the main topics presented at the conference "Chronic Inflammatory and Neuropathic Pain," convened jointly by the New York Academy of Sciences, MedImmune, and Grünenthal GmbH, on June 2-3, 2011, with the goal of providing a conducive environment for lively, informed, and synergistic conversation among participants from academia, industry, clinical practice, and government to explore new frontiers in our understanding and treatment of chronic and neuropathic pain. The program included leading and emerging investigators studying the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying neuropathic and chronic pain, and experts in the clinical development of pain therapies. Discussion included novel issues, current challenges, and future directions of basic research in pain and preclinical and clinical development of new therapies for chronic pain.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.214
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.134 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations32
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences→Same topicPain Mechanisms and Treatments→French-language works237,207→