Pain Relief and Functional Recovery in Patients with Complex Regional Pain Syndrome after Motor Cortex Stimulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In addition to pain and neurovegetative symptoms, patients with severe forms of complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) develop a broad range of symptoms, including sensory disturbances, motor impairment and dystonic posturing. While most patients respond to medical therapy, some are considered refractory and become surgical candidates. To date, the most commonly used surgical procedure for CRPS has been spinal cord stimulation. This therapy often leads to important analgesic effects, but no sensory or motor improvements. We report on 2 patients with pain related to CRPS and severe functional deficits treated with motor cortex stimulation (MCS) who not only had significant analgesic effects, but also improvements in sensory and motor symptoms. In the long term (27 and 36 months after surgery), visual analog scale pain scores were improved by 60-70% as compared to baseline. There was also a significant increase in the range of motion in the joints of the affected limbs and an improvement in allodynia, hyperpathia and hypoesthesia. Positron emission tomography scan in both subjects revealed that MCS influenced regions involved in the circuitry of pain.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".