MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009384447 · doi:10.1517/14728214.2014.915025

Emerging drugs for neuropathic pain

2014· review· en· W2009384447 on OpenAlexafffund
Ian Gilron, Anthony H. Dickenson

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Opinion on Emerging Drugs · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsKingston General HospitalQueen's University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchWellcome Trust
KeywordsMedicineNeuropathic painGabapentinIntensive care medicinePharmacologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Neuropathic pain is a costly and disabling condition, which affects up to 8% of the population. Available therapies often provide incomplete pain relief and treatment-related side effects are common. Preclinical neuropathic pain models have facilitated identification of several promising targets, which have progressed to human clinical phases of evaluation. AREAS COVERED: A systematic database search yielded 25 new molecular entities with specified pharmacological mechanisms that have reached Phase II or III clinical trials. These include calcium channel antagonists, vanilloid receptor antagonists, potassium channel agonists, NMDA antagonists, novel opioid receptor agonists, histamine H3 receptor antagonists, a novel sodium channel antagonist, serotonin modulators, a novel acetylcholine receptor agonist, α-2b adrenoreceptor agonist, cannabinoid CB2 receptor agonist, nitric oxide synthase inhibitor, orexin receptor antagonist, angiotensin II 2 antagonist, imidazoline I2 receptor agonist, apoptosis inhibitor and fatty acid amide hydrolase inhibitor. EXPERT OPINION: Although the diversity of pharmacological mechanisms of interest emphasise the complexity of neuropathic pain transmission, the considerable number of agents under development reflect a continued enthusiasm in drug development for neuropathic pain. Ongoing enhancements in methodology of both preclinical and clinical research and closer translation in both directions are expected to more efficiently identify new agents, which will improve the management of neuropathic 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.006

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.335 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations74
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Opinion on Emerging DrugsSame topicPain Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207