MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1798619848 · doi:10.1177/229255030000800402

Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy of the Upper Limb: Treatment Using a Series of Stellate Ganglion Blocks

2000· article· en· W1798619848 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
M. M. AL-QATTAN, A. Wahood

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plastic Surgery · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Management and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDystrophyStellate ganglionReflexAnesthesiaGanglionPhysical therapySurgeryAnatomyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fourteen consecutive patients with reflex sympathetic dystrophy of the hand were studied. Their conditions were diagnosed based on clinical features alone and confirmed by a positive symptomatic response following a stellate ganglion test block. Treatment for all patients was a series of stellate ganglion blocks combined with a physiotherapy program. The number of blocks performed per patient ranged between three and nine blocks, and the blocks were performed at two- to 10-day intervals. Subjectively, patients were asked to rate pain before and after treatment on a scale of 0 (no pain) to 10 (unbearable pain). Objectively, the average total active motion of the fingers (ATAM) was compared before and after treatment. Before treatment, pain was rated between 7 and 10, and the ATAM of the fingers was 83°. After treatment, pain was rated between 0 and 2, and motion improved to 260°. It was concluded that stellate ganglion block is an effective and safe method of treating reflex sympathetic dystrophy as long as the diagnosis is made early, the block is given by an experienced physician and multiple blocks are performed along with a physiotherapy program.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plastic SurgerySame topicPain Management and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207