Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neuropathic pain can be difficult to treat clinically, as current therapies involve partial effectiveness and significant adverse effects. Following the development of preclinical models for neuropathic pain, significant advances have been made in understanding the neurobiology of neuropathic pain. This includes an appreciation of the molecular entities involved in initiation of pain, the role of particular afferents (small and large diameter, injured and uninjured), and the contribution of inflammation. Currently, topical formulations of capsaicin (cream) and lidocaine (patch) are available for treating neuropathic pain in humans. Preclinical studies provide evidence that peripheral applications of opioids, alpha-adrenergic agents, and antidepressants also may be beneficial in neuropathic pain, and some clinical reports provide support for topical applications of such agents. An appreciation of the ability of drug application, to sites remote from the site of injury, to alleviate aspects of neuropathic pain will provide a significant impetus for the further development of novel topical analgesics for this condition.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it