MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4200010014 · doi:10.7759/cureus.20358

Monitoring Pharmacological Treatment in Patients With Chronic Noncancer Pain

2021· review· en· W4200010014 on OpenAlexaff
Grisell Vargas-Schaffer, Allen Steverman, Véronique Potvin

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineChronic painChronic diseaseDiseaseHealth carePsychiatryPopulationIntensive care medicineEnvironmental healthInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chronic pain has been not recognized as a chronic illness, and its far-reaching impacts are often ignored. Chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) is a chronic disease and health care professionals need recommendations on how to monitor treatments, patients and long-term side effects of the different medications used to control CNCP. CNCP patients make up a vulnerable population due to the various associated pathologies and the challenging socio-economic conditions experienced by many of these patients. CNCP is more common among older adults, females, cancer survivors, indigenous peoples, veterans, and populations affected by social inequities and discrimination. These social determinants can lead to a complex interplay between chronic pain, mental illness, and substance use disorders. Given these realities, long-term pharmacological and side effect surveillance is more complex. Follow-up of patients with CNCP is a challenge for physicians, and thus it is important to provide recommendations on how to monitor treatments and long-term side effects of the different medications used to control CNCP.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.319 · 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCureus→Same topicPain Mechanisms and Treatments→French-language works237,207→