Integrative Chronic Pain Management: A Narrative Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many people in the USA have lost their lives or become addicted to opioids via prescription opioids given for chronic pain. The chronic pain epidemic has emerged due to a convergence of factors, including the medicalization of pain as well as injuries happening in the workplace, in the home, or during recreation. Opioid prescriptions rose precipitously from the late 1990’s through to approximately 2020, and despite public awareness, still are increasing. This review examines literature on integrative approaches to chronic pain as delineated by pain type. The review is organized by the most common causes of chronic pain, and randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses and systematic reviews are extracted for each cause of chronic pain. Several promising interventions may alleviate chronic pain of some causes, and some interventions may work across pain causes. Lowering inflammation through dietary or lifestyle regimens may be a general way of reducing pain. Pain can be alleviated through several adjunctive and integrative treatment approaches, which may serve to lower the need for opioid medication.
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 | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.031 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".