Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic neuropathic pain is often considered to be a common complication of injury to the central or peripheral nervous system and the pain itself is usually assumed to be intractable. Both of these assumptions are inaccurate. For example, numbness and tingling in glove and stocking distribution are common accompaniments of longstanding diabetes mellitus, but only about 10% of patients with diabetic neuropathy consider these sensory changes to be painful (1). Anticonvulsant and antidepressant treatments provide effective analgesia in up to 50% of patients with chronic neuropathic pain (2) and there is a growing body of high‐quality evidence that controlled‐release opioid analgesics provide substantial pain relief in a further subset of patients (3‐6). Even with polypharmacy, this still leaves perhaps 20% to 30% of chronic neuropathic pain sufferers lacking adequate analgesia, and side effects can be problematic. In addition, central pain appears to be more refractory to opioid treatment than pain due to peripheral nerve injury (7).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".