MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Sources of Individual Differences in Pain

2021· review· en· W3182876608 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Neuroscience · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTwin studyPersonalityPsychologyAnalgesicChronic painGene–environment interactionEthnic groupGenetic predispositionClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyNeurosciencePsychiatryBiologyGeneGeneticsSocial psychologyGenotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pain is an immense clinical and societal challenge, and the key to understanding and treating it is variability. Robust interindividual differences are consistently observed in pain sensitivity, susceptibility to developing painful disorders, and response to analgesic manipulations. This review examines the causes of this variability, including both organismic and environmental sources. Chronic pain development is a textbook example of a gene-environment interaction, requiring both chance initiating events (e.g., trauma, infection) and more immutable risk factors. The focus is on genetic factors, since twin studies have determined that a plurality of the variance likely derives from inherited genetic variants, but sex, age, ethnicity, personality variables, and environmental factors are also considered.

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.

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)0.006
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 score0.759
Threshold uncertainty score0.925

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.296 · 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