MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Genetic studies of human neuropathic pain conditions: a review

2017· review· en· W2767631641 on OpenAlexaff
Katerina Zorina-Lichtenwalter, Marc Parisien, Luda Diatchenko

Bibliographic record

VenuePain · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill Genome CentreMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuropathic painBiobankMedicineGenome-wide association studyGenetic associationCohortGenetic testingBioinformaticsGeneSingle-nucleotide polymorphismGeneticsBiologyInternal medicineAnesthesiaGenotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Numerous studies have shown associations between genetic variants and neuropathic pain disorders. Rare monogenic disorders are caused by mutations of substantial effect size in a single gene, whereas common disorders are likely to have a contribution from multiple genetic variants of mild effect size, representing different biological pathways. In this review, we survey the reported genetic contributors to neuropathic pain and submit them for validation in a 150,000-participant sample of the U.K. Biobank cohort. Successfully replicated association with a neuropathic pain construct for 2 variants in IL10 underscores the importance of neuroimmune interactions, whereas genome-wide significant association with low back pain (P = 1.3e-8) and false discovery rate 5% significant associations with hip, knee, and neck pain for variant rs7734804 upstream of the MAT2B gene provide evidence of shared contributing mechanisms to overlapping pain conditions at the molecular genetic level.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.264
GPT teacher head0.478
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations81
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePainSame topicPain Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207