fMRI in patients with lumbar disc disease: a paradigm to study patients over time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Low back pain is a common human ailment. It is estimated that over 70% of the population will experience low back pain that will require medication and/or medical attention. There are many causes for low back pain, one being herniation of the discs of the lumbar spine. Treatment options are very limited. Why patients develop chronic pain especially when there is no known organic cause or when the offending painful stimulus has been removed remains poorly understood. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) is a technique that allows researchers to image which regions of the brain that are activated during motor, cognitive, and sensory experiences. Using fMRI to study pain has revealed new information about how the brain responds to painful stimuli and what regions of the brain are activated during pain. However, many of the paradigms used do not replicate the subject's pain or use painful stimuli in volunteers without pain. Also, following patients from their acute phase of pain to the chronic phase with serial fMRI has not been performed. In this study we developed a paradigm that would allow studying patients with low back pain and leg pain including lumbar radiculopathy to better mimic a clinical pain syndrome and to have a method of following patients with this type of pain over time.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".