MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131231032 · doi:10.1016/j.pain.2010.07.015

The necessity of animal models in pain research

2010· review· en· W2131231032 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

VenuePain · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntrospectionAnimal modelRelevance (law)Human studiesChronic painPsychologyAnalgesicAnimal studiesAnimal testingMedicineNeuroscienceCognitive psychologyPsychiatryBiologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There exists currently a fair degree of introspection in the pain research community about the value of animal research. This review represents a defense of animal research in pain. We discuss the inherent advantage of animal models over human research as well as the crucial complementary roles animal studies play vis-à-vis human imaging and genetic studies. Finally, we discuss recent developments in animal models of pain that should improve the relevance and translatability of findings using laboratory animals. We believe that pain research using animal models is a continuing necessity-to understand fundamental mechanisms, identify new analgesic targets, and inform, guide and follow up human studies-if novel analgesics are to be developed for the treatment of chronic pain.

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)0.043
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0430.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.230
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.228 · 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