MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409432589 · doi:10.3390/life15040640

Preclinical Animal Models to Investigate the Role of Nav1.7 Ion Channels in Pain

2025· review· en· W4409432589 on OpenAlexaff
Álvaro Yogi, Umberto Banderali, María Moreno, Marzia Martina

Bibliographic record

VenueLife · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSodium channelNAV1Chronic painMedicineNeuropathic painDiseaseBioinformaticsNeuroscienceDownregulation and upregulationAdverse effectPain sensationSensationPharmacologyAnesthesiaGeneBiologyInternal medicinePhysical therapyGeneticsChemistrySodium

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chronic pain is a maladaptive neurological disease that remains a major global healthcare problem. Voltage-gated sodium channels (Navs) are major drivers of the excitability of sensory neurons, and the Nav subtype 1.7 (Nav1.7) has been shown to be critical for the transmission of pain-related signaling. This is highlighted by demonstrations that gain-of-function mutations in the Nav1.7 gene SCN9A result in various pain pathologies, whereas loss-of-function mutations cause complete insensitivity to pain. A substantial body of evidence demonstrates that chronic neuropathy and inflammation result in an upregulation of Nav1.7, suggesting that this channel contributes to pain transmission and sensation. As such, Nav1.7 is an attractive human-validated target for the treatment of pain. Nonetheless, a lack of subtype selectivity, insufficient efficacy, and adverse reactions are some of the issues that have hindered Nav1.7-targeted drug development. This review summarizes the pain behavior profiles mediated by Nav1.7 reported in multiple preclinical models, outlining the current knowledge of the biophysical, physiological, and distribution properties required for a Nav1.7 inhibitor to produce analgesia.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score0.631

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.121
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations11
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLifeSame topicPain Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207