MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103569887 · doi:10.1186/1744-8069-2-34

Hot Receptors in the Brain

2006· review· en· W2103569887 on OpenAlexaff
Hendrik W. Steenland, Shanelle W. Ko, Long‐Jun Wu, Min Zhuo

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Pain · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTRPV1NeuroscienceChronic painReceptorSpinal cordNeuroplasticityMedicineNociceptionTransient receptor potential channelPsychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two major approaches have been employed for the development of novel drugs to treat chronic pain. The most traditional approach identifies molecules involved in pain as potential therapeutic targets and has focused mainly on the periphery and spinal cord. A more recent approach identifies molecules that are involved in long-term plasticity. Drugs developed through the latter approach are predicted to treat chronic, but not physiological or acute, pain. The TRPV1 (transient receptor potential vanilloid-1) receptor is involved in nociceptive processing, and is a candidate therapeutic target for pain. While most research on TRPV1 receptors has been conducted at the level of the spinal cord and peripheral structures, considerably less research has focused on supraspinal structures. This short paper summarizes progress made on TRPV1 receptors, and reviews research on the expression and function of TRPV1 receptors in supraspinal structures. We suggest that the TRPV1 receptor may be involved in pain processing in higher brain structures, such as the anterior cingulate cortex. In addition, some regions of the brain utilize the TRPV1 receptor for functions apparently unrelated to 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.004

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.297 · 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

Citations87
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular PainSame topicPain Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207