MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2754928586 · doi:10.1002/jor.23741

Animal models for studying the etiology and treatment of low back pain

2017· review· en· W2754928586 on OpenAlexaff
Changgui Shi, Sujun Qiu, Scott M. Riester, Vaskar Das, Bingqian Zhu, Atiyayein A. Wallace, André J. van Wijnen, Fackson Mwale, James C. Iatridis, Daisuke Sakai, Gina Votta‐Velis, Hee‐Jeong Im

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Orthopaedic Research® · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
FundersNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin DiseasesArthritis FoundationFoundation for the National Institutes of Health
KeywordsEtiologyLow back painMedicineIntensive care medicinePhysical therapyInternal medicineAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chronic low back pain is a major cause of disability and health care costs. Effective treatments are inadequate for many patients. Animal models are essential to further understanding of the pain mechanism and testing potential therapies. Currently, a number of preclinical models have been developed attempting to mimic aspects of clinical conditions that contribute to low back pain (LBP). This review focused on describing these animal models and the main behavioral tests for assessing pain in each model. Animal models of LBP can be divided into the following five categories: Discogenic LBP, radicular back pain, facet joint osteoarthritis back pain, muscle-induced LBP, and spontaneous occurring LBP models. These models are important not only for enhancing our knowledge of how LBP is generated, but also for the development of novel therapeutic regimens to treat LBP in patients. © 2017 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res 36:1305-1312, 2018.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score0.403

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.344
GPT teacher head0.497
Teacher spread0.153 · 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
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

Citations59
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Orthopaedic Research®Same topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207