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

Drug safety evaluation of pregabalin

2012· review· en· W2112690253 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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