The preclinical discovery of lofexidine for the treatment of opiate addiction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Lofexidine is one therapeutic option used for treating the onslaught of sympathetic outflow that typically commences upon induction of opiate withdrawal. It was approved for opiate detoxification in the UK, most of EU, and a select few countries worldwide during the 1980s and the 90s. Within the US and Canada, however, it remains an experimental drug. AREAS COVERED: The following article highlights lacunae in extant knowledge about the molecular pharmacology of lofexidine. Furthermore, the article provides a brief discussion on the nature and shortcomings of clinical trials for this drug that have been conducted over the past 30 years across the world. It also provides a discussion of the market factors and regulatory considerations responsible for the rather limited use of lofexidine thus far. EXPERT OPINION: Many lessons can be learned from the 40-year-long development of lofexidine. Indeed, unless there is an urgent need to address an unmet and/or immediate health threat, preclinical development is dictated by pharmacoeconomic considerations. Lofexidine would likely have been excluded for further development in this day and age given the existence and value of clonidine as well as the lack of insurance coverage for opiate addiction. It should be noted, however, that although there have been many oversights in the past, current experimentation and clinical trials are beginning to address the mistakes made through the exploration of single enantiomers and controlled-release preparations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.005 |
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".