MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2888674693 · doi:10.1002/ejp.1307

Blood monoamines as potential biomarkers for conditioned pain modulation efficacy: An exploratory study in paediatrics

2018· article· en· W2888674693 on OpenAlexafffund
Catherine Ferland, Alisson Roberto Teles, Pablo Ingelmo, Neil Saran, Serge Marchand, Jean Ouellet

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Pain · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOpioid Use Disorder Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityShriners Hospitals for Children - CanadaUniversité de SherbrookeMcGill University Health Centre
FundersLouise and Alan Edwards FoundationMcGill University
KeywordsMonoaminergicMonoamine neurotransmitterMedicineBiomarkerInternal medicineDopamineNormetanephrineSerotoninDepression (economics)EndocrinologyCatecholamineChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Monoaminergic pathways are involved in the process of pain inhibition and facilitation. The objective of this study was to investigate the role of blood monoamines as biomarkers of conditioned pain modulation ( CPM ) efficacy. Methods One hundred and five paediatric patients with chronic back pain were enrolled in this observational study. The protocol involved dosage of plasma monoamines (dopamine, DOPA ; serotonin, 5‐ HT ; epinephrine, Epi; norepinephrine, NE ; metanephrine, ME ; and normetanephrine, NME ) and clinical assessment ( CPM , functional disability, pain, sleep quality, anxiety and depression). Results 5‐ HT and DOPA were positively correlated among each other and were both negatively correlated with Epi, ME , NE and NME . CPM presented a positive correlation with DOPA and 5‐ HT . On the other hand, Epi, ME , NE and NME correlated negatively with CPM . Different correlation coefficients were observed between genders, with stronger coefficients being observed in the male subpopulation. Stepwise regression controlling for age and gender indicated that ME (B = −0.987, SE (B) = 0.299, p = 0.002) was the only significant predictor for CPM efficacy. Higher blood ME was associated with poorer CPM efficacy. ME explained 53% of variation of CPM in males ( R 2 = 0.536, p < 0.0001) and 7% in females ( R 2 = 0.074, p = 0.014). In males, blood ME >15 pg/ml predicted inefficient CPM with 88.9% sensitivity and 83.3% specificity. Conclusions Our findings suggest that ME can be a potential biomarker for CPM efficacy in paediatrics. Future studies are needed to assess the efficacy of tailored treatments for pain according to blood ME . Significance We were able to demonstrate an association between CPM and circulating monoamines. In the clinical setting, sampling ME could provide the clinician an idea of the individual's pain modulation potential. This may be particularly important for children with cognitive impairment, for whose CPM paradigm cannot be used.

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)0.006
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.297
Threshold uncertainty score0.585

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations14
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of PainSame topicOpioid Use Disorder TreatmentFrench-language works237,207