MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4400578838 · doi:10.5937/galmed2410035p

Pharmacotherapy of chronic noncancer pain in adults

2024· article· en· W4400578838 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Miroslava Pjević

Bibliographic record

VenueGalenika Medical Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPharmacotherapyMedicineChronic painIntensive care medicineInternal medicinePhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) in adults is one of the most common reasons for which patients seek medical help. Chronic pain is present in about 20% of the world's adult population and as a global health problem requires greater attention from every society. Chronic pain has a negative impact not only on the individual but by increasing costs, directly on the health system and indirectly on the economy of the whole society. Its adequate treatment is a human right, and every healthcare system must ensure it. In this regard, great progress has been made with the implementation of chronic pain in the revised ICD-11, which will contribute to changing health policy and focusing more attention on the prevention and treatment of chronic pain worldwide. Integrative pharmacological and nonpharmacological therapeutic approaches with the patient in focus (patient-centric approach) have the strongest evidence of effectiveness; because they reduce not only the intensity of pain but also improve physical, psychological, and social functionality and increase patient satisfaction. Individually tailored balanced pharmacological approaches for different phenotypes of chronic pain (nociceptive, neuropathic, nociplastic) involve the use of nonselective and selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), acetaminophen, antidepressants, anticonvulsants, other adjuvant therapies and opioid analgesics. These pharmacological approaches based on mechanisms, intensity of pain, and comorbidities, contribute to the optimization of individual therapeutic goals and the maximization of safety and quality of life of persons being treated. Liberalization of opioid prescription in CNCP and inadequate selection and follow-up of patients have contributed to opioid prescription reaching epidemic proportions in the USA, Canada, and some Western European countries and led to the phenomenon of medicalization, iatrogenesis, and fatal outcomes, i.e. opioid crisis. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC, 2022) guideline for opioid prescribing is summarized in 12 key recommendations based on strong evidence and related to initiation of opioid therapy, opioid selection, dose determination, duration of therapy, monitoring, and assessment of potential side effects from the use of 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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.312 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGalenika Medical Journal→Same topicPain Mechanisms and Treatments→French-language works237,207→