MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2314051648 · doi:10.1055/s-0034-1376744

Development New Pain Targets in the Genomic Era

2014· article· en· W2314051648 on OpenAlexaff
Luda Diatchenko, Roger B. Fillingim, Shad B. Smith, William Maixner

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Spine Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealth and Medical Research Impacts
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePsychosocialAnxietyChronic painPain medicineDistressPhysical therapyPsychiatryClinical psychologyAnesthesiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Musculoskeletal pain conditions, such low back pain, are characterized by a report of pain greater than expected based on the results of a standard physical evaluation. The pathophysiology of these conditions is largely unknown, we lack biological markers for accurate diagnosis, and conventional therapeutics have limited effectiveness. Growing evidence suggests that chronic pain conditions are associated with both physical and psychological triggers, which initiate pain amplification and psychological distress; thus, susceptibility is dictated by complex interactions between genetic and environmental factors. Herein, we will review phenotypic and genetic markers of common musculoskeletal pain conditions, selected based on their association with musculoskeletal pain in previous research. The phenotypic markers of greatest interest include measures of pain amplification and “psychological” measures (such as emotional distress, somatic awareness, psychosocial stress, and catastrophizing). Genetic polymorphisms reproducibly linked with musculoskeletal pain are found in genes contributing to serotonergic and adrenergic pathways. Elucidation of the biological mechanisms by which these markers contribute to the perception of pain in these patients will enable the development of novel effective drugs and methodologies that permit better diagnoses and approaches to personalized medicine. Acknowledgments for Grant Support • 1K12DSE022793/PHS HHS/United States • AG033906/AG/NIA NIH HHS/United States • P01 NS045685/NS/NINDS NIH HHS/United States • R01-DE16558/DE/NIDCR NIH HHS/United States • U01-DE017018/DE/NIDCR NIH HHS/United States Disclosure of Interest Substantial shareholders: Attagene, Inc., Algynomics, Inc.; Consultant: Clontech, Inc., Algynomics, Inc.; Officer position: Algynomics, Inc.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.004

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.324 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Spine JournalSame topicHealth and Medical Research ImpactsFrench-language works237,207