MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2768454515 · doi:10.1007/s40122-017-0087-0

A review of Neuropathic Pain: From Guidelines to Clinical Practice

2017· review· en· W2768454515 on OpenAlexfundno aff
G. Cruccu, Andrea Truini

Bibliographic record

VenuePain and Therapy · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Pain SocietyBiogenPfizer
KeywordsNeuropathic painMedicineClinical PracticeNociceptionPopulationPhysical therapyAnesthesiaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neuropathic pain is a chronic condition representing a significant burden for patients, society, and healthcare systems. The prevalence of neuropathic pain in the general population has been estimated at 7-8% and is expected to increase in the future. Neuropathic pain differs from nociceptive pain and requires a different therapeutic approach; and the management of neuropathic pain is complicated and challenging. This chapter discusses clinical practice guidelines for neuropathic pain and their usefulness in clinical practice. FUNDING: Pfizer, Italy.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0080.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.003

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 head0.372
GPT teacher head0.538
Teacher spread0.166 · 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

Citations196
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePain and TherapySame topicPain Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207