Bibliographic record
Abstract
The treatment of neuropathic pain: antidepressants and opioids. (University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada) Clin J Pain 2000;16:S49–S55. This article reviewed the scientific data on antidepressants and opioids, which are largely confined to randomized controlled trials in two neuropathic pain conditions that have proved to be good models for clinical investigation. A review of literature was conducted using MEDLINE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Database regarding postherpetic neuralgia and painful diabetic neuropathy. The use of the older antidepressants such as amitriptyline in neuropathic pain was extensively supported by the literature. However, newer randomized controlled trials supported the use of opioids. Conclude that first‐line therapy for neuropathic pain may be either an older generation antidepressant such as amitriptyline or nortriptyline or the anticonvulsant gabapentin. For refractory cases, chronic opioid therapy may be the only avenue of relief, and evidence is accumulating that this approach is safe if proper guidelines are observed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".