MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2345724932 · doi:10.1155/2006/718098

Prevalence of Neuropathic Pain and the Need for Treatment

2006· article· en· W2345724932 on OpenAlexaff
Pat Morley-Forster

Bibliographic record

VenuePain Research and Management · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsSt Joseph's Health Care
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuropathic painMedicinePostherpetic neuralgiaNeuralgiaVulvodyniaComplex regional pain syndromePeripheral neuropathyAnesthesiaTrigeminal neuralgiaDiabetes mellitusSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent publications have suggested that more than two million adults in the United States suffer from neuropathic pain, but this number seems to be a significant underestimate. The prevalence of neuropathic pain from diabetes and postherpetic neuralgia alone, using the most conservative estimates of incidence, would equal two million Americans. Lesions of the nervous system responsible for pain genesis can occur either in the central or the peripheral nervous system. The most common causes of peripheral neuropathic pain syndromes worldwide are diabetes, HIV infection, cancer‐related neuropathy (due to tumour invasion, surgical nerve damage, radiation or chemotherapy‐induced nerve damage) and lumbar degenerative disc disease. Other less common, but significant, sources of suffering are postherpetic neuralgia, complex regional pain syndrome, phantom limb pain and postsurgical nerve trauma. Central neuropathic pain can be caused by stroke (infarct or hemorrhage), multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injury and syringomyelia. Certain pain syndromes such as trigeminal neuralgia and vulvodynia, although clearly neuropathic and a source of tremendous suffering, are not discussed in the present article due to space constraints. There is an unmet need for the treatment of neuropathic pain as evidenced by reports of pain despite the use of opioids and anticonvulsants, continuing psychological difficulties, lack of access to treatments and patients seeking access to complementary therapy.

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 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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.694
Threshold uncertainty score0.358

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations11
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePain Research and ManagementSame topicPain Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207