MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112690253 · doi:10.1517/14740338.2012.677026

Drug safety evaluation of pregabalin

2012· review· en· W2112690253 on OpenAlexaff
Cory Toth

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Opinion on Drug Safety · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPregabalinMedicineAdverse effectNeuropathic painSedationPeripheral edemaAnesthesiaAnticonvulsantIntensive care medicinePharmacologyEpilepsyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Pregabalin is an anticonvulsant with one known mechanism of action which is used most specifically in the management of neuropathic pain. AREAS COVERED: The adverse effect profile of this medication from controlled, randomized studies as well as open and long-term studies is described with consideration of the evidence-based results for pregabalin's clinical use. EXPERT OPINION: Pregabalin is a mostly well tolerated medication for the management of neuropathic pain and other conditions. Pregabalin use is associated with benign central nervous system and systemic adverse effects with very limited metabolic, idiosyncratic, or teratogenic adverse effects. Understanding of these adverse effects is essential for the clinician treating the patient and for the patient receiving treatment. Sedation, dizziness, peripheral edema, and dry mouth are the most prevalent adverse events experienced in all clinical populations. Other adverse effects are rare, but 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.003

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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.300 · 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

Citations27
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Opinion on Drug SafetySame topicPain Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207