Effects of Intravenous Sodium Amobarbital Vs Lidocaine on Pain and Sensory Abnormalities in Patients With Spinal Cord Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the responses of patients with spinal cord injury (SCI) in regards to pain and sensory abnormalities to single blinded intravenous (i.v.) infusions of normal saline, sodium amobarbital, and lidocaine. SETTING: Inpatient pain unit. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. METHODS: Demographic data, body maps marking pain areas, pain ratings, standardized history and detailed examination were collected on admission in 5 patients with SCI and pain. i.v. normal saline was followed by either i.v. sodium amobarbital or lidocaine, respectively, (patients, but not the administering physician, were blinded to the order of the drugs). Spontaneous pain ratings and sensory abnormalities to light touch, pinprick and cold were documented at baseline and immediately after each infusion. RESULTS: Sodium amobarbital decreased spontaneous pain by 73% (vs 46% with lidocaine) and normalized sensory abnormalities at or above the level of injury in 3 patients (as compared to just 1 patient with lidocaine), 2 of whom had transitional zone allodynia/hyperalgesia. CONCLUSION: In this small study, the analgesic effect of sodium amobarbital and its ability to modify sensory abnormalities appeared superior to that of lidocaine.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".