IUPHAR review: Navigating the role of preclinical models in pain research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic pain is a complex and challenging medical condition that affects millions of people worldwide. Understanding the underlying mechanisms of chronic pain is a key goal of preclinical pain research so that more effective treatment strategies can be developed. In this review, we explore nociception, pain, and the multifaceted factors that lead to chronic pain by focusing on preclinical models. We provide a detailed look into inflammatory and neuropathic pain models and discuss the most used animal models for studying the mechanisms behind these conditions. Additionally, we emphasize the vital role of these preclinical models in developing new pain-relief drugs, focusing on biologics and the therapeutic potential of NMDA and cannabinoid receptor antagonists. We also discuss the challenges of TRPV1 modulation for pain treatment, the clinical failures of neurokinin (NK)- 1 receptor antagonists, and the partial success story of Ziconotide to provide valuable lessons for preclinical pain models. Finally, we highlight the overall success and limitations of current treatments for chronic pain while providing critical insights into the development of more effective therapies to alleviate the burden of chronic pain.
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 | 0.042 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".