MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1824990699 · doi:10.1155/2015/375174

The Effect of Low‐Frequency Sound Stimulation on Patients with Fibromyalgia: A Clinical Study

2015· article· en· W1824990699 on OpenAlexafffund
Lili Naghdi, Heidi Ahonen, Pasqualino Macario, Lee Bartel

Bibliographic record

VenuePain Research and Management · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Research
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of WaterlooWilfrid Laurier University
KeywordsMedicineSupine positionMuscle toneFibromyalgiaSittingPhysical therapyAnesthesiaRange of motionMoodAdverse effectPhysical medicine and rehabilitationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Researchers have hypothesized that thalamocortical dysfunction plays a role in fibromyalgia. The use of low‐frequency sound stimulation to ameliorate thalamocortical dysfunction has also been investigated, and has shown promise in treating certain pain conditions. Accordingly, the authors of this study aimed to assess the effects of treatment with low‐frequency sound stimulation among patients with fibromyalgia. BACKGROUND: The search for effective treatments for fibromyalgia (FM) has continued for years. The present study premises that thalamocortical dysrhythmia is implicated in fibromyalgia and that low‐frequency sound stimulation (LFSS) can play a regulatory function by driving neural rhythmic oscillatory activity. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of LFSS on FM. METHOD: The present open‐label study with no control group used a repeated‐measures design with no noncompleters. Nineteen female volunteers (median age 51 years; median duration of FM 5.76 years) were administered 10 treatments (twice per week for five weeks). Treatments involved 23 min of LFSS at 40 Hz, delivered using transducers in a supine position. Measures (repeated before and after treatment) included the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire, Jenkins Sleep Scale, Pain Disability Index, sitting and standing without pain (in minutes), cervical muscle range of motion and muscle tone. Mean percentages were calculated on end of treatment self‐reports of improvement on pain, mood, insomnia and activities of daily living. RESULTS: Significant improvements were observed with median scores: Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire, 81% (P<0.0001); Jenkins Sleep Scale, 90% (P<0.0001); and Pain Disability Index, 49.1% (P<0.0001). Medication dose was reduced in 73.68% of patients and completely discontinued in 26.32%. Time sitting and standing without pain increased significantly (P<0.0001). Cervical muscle range of motion increased from 25% to 75% (P=0.001), while muscle tone changed from hypertonic to normal (P=0.0002). CONCLUSION: In the present study, the LFSS treatment showed no adverse effects and patients receiving the LFSS treatment showed statistically and clinically relevant improvement. Further phase 2 and 3 trials are warranted.

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)0.010
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score0.363

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.001
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.339 · 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 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

Citations53
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePain Research and ManagementSame topicFibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome ResearchFrench-language works237,207