Approach to the pharmacological management of chronic pain in patients with an alcohol use disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Laura Murphy,1,2 Karen WK Ng,1 Victoria CH Su,3 Sarah Woodworth-Giroux,4 Todd S Levy,1 Beth A Sproule,2,5 Andrea D Furlan1,6 1University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada; 2Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; 3St Paul's Hospital, Lower Mainland Pharmacy Services, Vancouver, BC, Canada; 4Windsor Regional Hospital, Windsor, ON, Canada; 5Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), Toronto, ON, Canada; 6Institute for Work and Health, Toronto, ON, Canada Abstract: This paper provides an overview of research, guidelines, and clinical considerations for the use of medications for chronic pain in the management of patients with an alcohol use disorder. A review of the literature identified randomized controlled trials, epidemiological cohort studies, consensus guidelines, and one systematic review and meta-analysis. Where gaps in the literature existed, clinical experience of the authors is included. Use of nonopioid medications should be given priority and may offer a more favorable risk profile as well as benefits beyond pain management, such as improvement in anxiety, depression, or insomnia. Pregabalin and gabapentin have additional benefits to decrease alcohol cravings or time to relapse after a period of abstinence from alcohol. Drug interactions between selected analgesics and alcohol, disulfiram, or naltrexone require careful consideration. Keywords: chronic pain, alcohol use disorder, opioids
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".