Common Mechanisms Underlying Opioid Tolerance and Dependence and Neuropathic Pain: Role of Metabotropic Glutamate Receptors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been suggested that opioid tolerance and dependence share common mechanisms with neuropathic pain. This short review deals with the role of glutamate and glutamate receptors in opioid tolerance and dependence, and neuropathic pain. Particular attention is given to the role of metabotropic glutamate receptors (mGluRs). First, the different types of glutamate receptors, which include N‐methyl‐D‐aspartate, alpha‐amino‐3‐hydroxyl‐5‐methyl‐ isoxazole‐4‐propionic acid, kainate and mGluRs, are described. Following this, evidence suggesting that these receptors are involved in opioid tolerance and dependence are summarized. At the end of this section, a model that has been previously proposed to explain mechanisms by which mGluRs may be involved in opioid tolerance and dependence are described. Next is a discussion of the evidence suggesting that glutamate receptors are similarly involved in neuropathic pain, and also in opioid sensitivity associated with neuropathic pain. Again, a hypothetical model used to explain mechanisms by which mGluRs may be involved in neuropathic pain is briefly described. The relevance of the data is discussed in terms of some of the clinical implications of the material presented in the article.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".