MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2569553468 · doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2016.12.003

Neuroinflammation—a co-occurring phenomenon linking chronic pain and opioid dependence

2017· article· en· W2569553468 on OpenAlexaff
Catherine M. Cahill, Anna M.W. Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Behavioral Sciences · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNational Institutes of HealthNational Institute on Drug AbuseU.S. Department of Defense
KeywordsChronic painAddictionHyperalgesiaNeuroinflammationOpioidAffect (linguistics)PsychologyDepression (economics)SensitizationMedicineNeuroscienceDiseasePsychiatryNociceptionInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chronic pain is a disease that encompasses both sensory and emotional elements. Opioids are highly effective analgesics because they target both of these elements, by inhibiting pain pathways and alleviating negative affect (including depression) by engaging reward or hedonic pathways. Unfortunately, chronic opioid use is limited by the development of unwanted side effects, such as tolerance, hyperalgesia, and abuse liability. Thus, the challenge of providing effective pain treatment while minimizing these unwanted side effects is an ongoing issue with significant clinical and societal impact. In this review, we posit that neuroinflammation within the central nervous system is a shared phenomenon between chronic pain and opioids that contributes to pain sensitization and negative affect. The implications for pain progression, addiction liability, and alternative treatment strategies are discussed.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.149
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations83
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Behavioral SciencesSame topicPain Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207