Memantine (a N-Methyl-d-Aspartate Receptor Antagonist) in the Treatment of Neuropathic Pain After Amputation or Surgery: A Randomized, Double-Blinded, Cross-Over Study
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
UNLABELLED: Evidence has accumulated that the N:-methyl-D-aspartate receptor system plays a role in continuous and particularly, in stimulus-evoked pain after nerve injury. We examined, in a randomized, double-blinded, cross-over fashion, the analgesic effect of memantine (a N:-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist) in a group of patients with chronic pain after surgery. We randomized 19 patients to receive either memantine or placebo in the first 5-wk treatment period. A washout period of 4 wks was followed by another 5-wk treatment period with the opposite drug. The dosage of drug was increased from 5 to 20 mg/d. Pain was recorded daily, with the use of a 0-10 numeric rating scale. Before and at the end of each treatment period, pain and sensitivity were also assessed by using the McGill Pain Questionnaire, allodynia to touch, brush and cold, wind-up-like pain, and thresholds to mechanical stimuli (pressure and von Frey hair). A total of 15 patients (12 amputees and three patients with other nerve injuries) completed the study. There was no difference between memantine and placebo on any of the outcome measures. We conclude that memantine at a dosage of 20 mg/d does not reduce spontaneous or evoked pain in patients with nerve injury pain. IMPLICATIONS: In a randomized, double-blinded and cross-over study, the analgesic effect of memantine (a drug which reduces the excitability of sensitized neurons in the dorsal horn) was examined in 19 patients with chronic pain after nerve injury.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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