MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Imaging vs quantitative sensory testing to predict chronic pain treatment outcomes

2019· review· en· W2939907806 on OpenAlexafffund
Karen D. Davis

Bibliographic record

VenuePain · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsQuantitative sensory testingChronic painSensory systemMedicineNeuroimagingModalitiesStimulus modalityBrain functionBrain Structure and FunctionFunctional Brain ImagingPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyNeurosciencePsychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, I review the concept of personalized pain management and consider how brain imaging and quantitative sensory testing can be used to derive biomarkers of chronic pain treatment outcome. I review how different modalities of brain imaging can be used to acquire information about brain structure and function and how this information can be linked to individual measures of pain.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
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)0.0000.001

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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.397
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.

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

Citations27
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePainSame topicPain Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207