Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ketamine, in subanesthetic doses, produces systemic analgesia in chronic pain settings, an action largely attributed to block of N-methyl-D-aspartate receptors in the spinal cord and inhibition of central sensitization processes. N-methyl-D-aspartate receptors also are located peripherally on sensory afferent nerve endings, and this provided the initial impetus for exploring peripheral applications of ketamine. Ketamine also produces several other pharmacological actions (block of ion channels and receptors, modulation of transporters, anti-inflammatory effects), and while these may require higher concentrations, after topical (e.g., as gels, creams) and peripheral application (e.g., localized injections), local tissue concentrations are higher than those after systemic administration and can engage lower affinity mechanisms. Peripheral administration of ketamine by localized injection produced some alterations in sensory thresholds in experimental trials in volunteers and in complex regional pain syndrome subjects in experimental settings, but many variables were unaltered. There are several case reports of analgesia after topical application of ketamine given alone in neuropathic pain, but controlled trials have not confirmed such effects. A combination of topical ketamine with several other agents produced pain relief in case, and case series, reports with response rates of 40% to 75% in retrospective analyses. In controlled trials of neuropathic pain with topical ketamine combinations, there were improvements in some outcomes, but optimal dosing and drug combinations were not clear. Given orally (as a gargle, throat swab, localized peritonsillar injections), ketamine produced significant oral/throat analgesia in controlled trials in postoperative settings. Topical analgesics are likely more effective in particular conditions (patient factors, disease factors), and future trials of topical ketamine should include a consideration of factors that could predispose to favorable outcomes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".