MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2597959422 · doi:10.1177/1744806917699212

Descending facilitation

2017· review· en· W2597959422 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Pain · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsFacilitationNeuroscienceBrainstemChronic painSomatosensory systemSpinal cordMedicineSensory systemNociceptionNeuropathic painPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is documented that sensory transmission, including pain, is subject to endogenous inhibitory and facilitatory modulation at the dorsal horn of the spinal cord. Descending facilitation has received a lot of attention, due to its potentially important roles in chronic pain. Recent investigation using neurobiological approaches has further revealed the link between cortical potentiation and descending facilitation. Cortical-spinal top-down facilitation, including those relayed through brainstem neurons, provides powerful control for pain transmission at the level of the spinal cord. It also provides the neuronal basis to link emotional disorders such as anxiety, depression, and loss of hope to somatosensory pain and sufferings. In this review, I will review a brief history of the discovery of brainstem-spinal descending facilitation and explore new information and hypothesis for descending facilitation in chronic pain.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.856

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.152
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.275 · 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