MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2195343432 · doi:10.1111/cns.12486

Preclinical Assessment of Inflammatory Pain

2015· review· en· W2195343432 on OpenAlexaff
Milind M. Muley, Eugene Krustev, Jason J. McDougall

Bibliographic record

VenueCNS Neuroscience & Therapeutics · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInflammationAllodyniaChronic painHyperalgesiaNeuroscienceNociceptionAnalgesicHuman studiesBioinformaticsPharmacologyImmunologyPhysical therapyPsychologyReceptorBiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While acute inflammation is a natural physiological response to tissue injury or infection, chronic inflammation is maladaptive and engenders a considerable amount of adverse pain. The chemical mediators responsible for tissue inflammation act on nociceptive nerve endings to lower neuronal excitation threshold and sensitize afferent firing rate leading to the development of allodynia and hyperalgesia, respectively. Animal models have aided in our understanding of the pathophysiological mechanisms responsible for the generation of chronic inflammatory pain and allowed us to identify and validate numerous analgesic drug candidates. Here we review some of the commonly used models of skin, joint, and gut inflammatory pain along with their relative benefits and limitations. In addition, we describe and discuss several behavioral and electrophysiological approaches used to assess the inflammatory pain in these preclinical models. Despite significant advances having been made in this area, a gap still exists between fundamental research and the implementation of these findings into a clinical setting. As such we need to characterize inherent pathophysiological pathways and develop new endpoints in these animal models to improve their predictive value of human inflammatory diseases in order to design safer and more effective analgesics.

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)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.280
GPT teacher head0.490
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations194
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCNS Neuroscience & TherapeuticsSame topicPain Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207