Animal models of chronic pain: Advances and challenges for clinical translation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic pain is a global problem that has reached epidemic proportions. An estimated 20% of adults suffer from pain, and another 10% are diagnosed with chronic pain each year (Goldberg and McGee, ). Despite the high prevalence of chronic pain (an estimated 1.5 billion people are afflicted worldwide), much remains to be understood about the underlying causes of this condition, and there is an urgent requirement for better pain therapies. The discovery of novel targets and the development of better analgesics rely on an assortment of preclinical animal models; however, there are major challenges to translating discoveries made in animal models to realized pain therapies in humans. This review discusses common animal models used to recapitulate clinical chronic pain conditions (such as neuropathic, inflammatory, and visceral pain) and the methods for assessing the sensory and affective components of pain in animals. We also discuss the advantages and limitations of modeling chronic pain in animals as well as highlighting strategies for improving the predictive validity of preclinical pain studies. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, 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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it