MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028381892 · doi:10.1016/s0304-3959(99)00193-1

The role of corticotropin-releasing factor in pain and analgesia

2000· review· en· W2028381892 on OpenAlexaff
William R. Lariviere, Ronald Melzack

Bibliographic record

VenuePain · 2000
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicStress Responses and Cortisol
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnalgesicMedicineCorticotropin-releasing hormoneHypothalamusPeripheralStressorCentral nervous systemNociceptionAnesthesiaInternal medicineEndocrinologyReceptorPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Corticotropin-releasing factor (CRF) is a peptide that is released from the hypothalamus and in widespread areas of the brain following exposure to stressors. It is considered to be a mediator of many of the effects of stress, and its analgesic properties have been demonstrated in many studies. However, for primarily methodological reasons, the effects of CRF in the central nervous system have been neglected whereas the peripheral effects of CRF have been overemphasized. We present evidence that: (1) CRF can act at all levels of the neuraxis to produce analgesia; (2) the release of beta-endorphin does not explain the analgesia following intravenous or intracranial CRF administration; (3) inflammation must be present for local CRF to evoke analgesia and (4) the analgesic effects of CRF show specificity for prolonged pain. These findings suggest that CRF may have a significant role in chronic pain syndromes associated with hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis abnormalities. Furthermore, CRF may represent a new class of analgesics that merits further study. Implications for the relationship between stress and pain are discussed.

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)0.000
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations233
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePainSame topicStress Responses and CortisolFrench-language works237,207