Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To report a case of successful treatment of neuropathic pain with venlafaxine. CASE REPORT: A 39-year-old white woman presented with neuropathic back pain. The patient obtained 50% pain relief with consecutive use of amitriptyline, desipramine, and imipramine. Anticholinergic effects prompted a switch to extended-release venlafaxine 75 mg/d. Pain relief was as effective with this therapy as with the tricyclic antidepressants. The absence of adverse effects allowed the patient to discontinue all laxatives. DISCUSSION: Venlafaxine is an antidepressant that inhibits reuptake of norepinephrine and serotonin. This is the major mechanism by which tricyclic antidepressants relieve neuropathic pain. Venlafaxine does not bind to muscarinic-cholinergic, histaminic or alpha1-adrenergic receptors responsible for the common adverse effects seen with tricyclic antidepressants. CONCLUSIONS: This report describes the efficacious use of venlafaxine in the treatment of neuropathic pain. Double-blind, randomized, controlled trials are needed to explore this further.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".