MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3217377278 · doi:10.25692/acen.2020.4.6

Atypical (deafferentation) odontalgia

2020· article· en· W3217377278 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
M. Yu. Maksimova, С. Н. Иллариошкин, Н А Синева, М. А. Пирадов

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Clinical and Experimental Neurology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The difficulty of clinical interpretation of atypical (deafferentation) odontalgia with respect to its connection, on the one hand, with endodontic interventions in the dentoalveolar region, and on the other hand, with psychogenic and personality disorders, remains a subject of discussion. We examined 93 patients with deafferentation odontalgia to clarify the psychological factors and quality of life parameters that affect this chronic pain syndrome. Most patients were women (79.6%) of working age (4050 years old). The visual analog scale and the McGill Pain Questionnaire were used to rate pain intensity, and the Pain Catastrophizing Scale was used to evaluate the negative psychoemotional response to pain. Depression was assessed using the Beck Depression Inventory and Hamilton Rating Scale, while the Spielberg Scale was used to evaluate the level of reactive and personal anxiety. Quality of life was assessed using the SF-36. It was shown that depression, anxiety, affective disorders, negative psychoemotional response to pain, and low quality of life were more often present in patients with chronic deafferentation odontalgia.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.223
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Clinical and Experimental NeurologySame topicPain Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207