Retracted: Comparison of Central versus Peripheral Delivery of Pregabalin in Neuropathic Pain States
Post-publication record
Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although pregabalin therapy is beneficial for neuropathic pain (NeP) by targeting the CaVα2δ-1 subunit, its site of action is uncertain. Direct targeting of the central nervous system may be beneficial for the avoidance of systemic side effects. RESULTS: We used intranasal, intrathecal, and near-nerve chamber forms of delivery of varying concentrations of pregabalin or saline delivered over 14 days in rat models of experimental diabetic peripheral neuropathy and spinal nerve ligation. As well, radiolabelled pregabalin was administered to determine localization with different deliveries. We evaluated tactile allodynia and thermal hyperalgesia at multiple time points, and then analyzed harvested nervous system tissues for molecular and immunohistochemical changes in CaVα2δ-1 protein expression. Both intrathecal and intranasal pregabalin administration at high concentrations relieved NeP behaviors, while near-nerve pregabalin delivery had no effect. NeP was associated with upregulation of CACNA2D1 mRNA and CaVα2δ-1 protein within peripheral nerve, dorsal root ganglia (DRG), and dorsal spinal cord, but not brain. Pregabalin's effect was limited to suppression of CaVα2δ-1 protein (but not CACNA2D1 mRNA) expression at the spinal dorsal horn in neuropathic pain states. Dorsal root ligation prevented CaVα2δ-1 protein trafficking anterograde from the dorsal root ganglia to the dorsal horn after neuropathic pain initiation. CONCLUSIONS: Either intranasal or intrathecal pregabalin relieves neuropathic pain behaviours, perhaps due to pregabalin's effect upon anterograde CaVα2δ-1 protein trafficking from the DRG to the dorsal horn. Intranasal delivery of agents such as pregabalin may be an attractive alternative to systemic therapy for management of neuropathic pain states.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".