MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113066364 · doi:10.1098/rstb.2013.0146

Long-term potentiation in the anterior cingulate cortex and chronic pain

2013· review· en· W2113066364 on OpenAlexaff
Min Zhuo

Bibliographic record

VenuePhilosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsCanada Research ChairsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLong-term potentiationNeuroscienceExcitatory postsynaptic potentialAnterior cingulate cortexNeurotransmissionChronic painMedicineSensory systemPostsynaptic potentialSpinal cordSynaptic plasticityGlutamate receptorPsychologyInhibitory postsynaptic potentialInternal medicineCognitionReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Glutamate is the primary excitatory transmitter of sensory transmission and perception in the central nervous system. Painful or noxious stimuli from the periphery 'teach' humans and animals to avoid potentially dangerous objects or environments, whereas tissue injury itself causes unnecessary chronic pain that can even last for long periods of time. Conventional pain medicines often fail to control chronic pain. Recent neurobiological studies suggest that synaptic plasticity taking place in sensory pathways, from spinal dorsal horn to cortical areas, contributes to chronic pain. Injuries trigger long-term potentiation of synaptic transmission in the spinal cord dorsal horn and anterior cingulate cortex, and such persistent potentiation does not require continuous neuronal activity from the periphery. At the synaptic level, potentiation of excitatory transmission caused by injuries may be mediated by the enhancement of glutamate release from presynaptic terminals and potentiated postsynaptic responses of AMPA receptors. Preventing, 'erasing' or reducing such potentiation may serve as a new mechanism to inhibit chronic pain in patients in the future.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score0.410

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations191
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhilosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological SciencesSame topicPain Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207