Prospective Diary Study of Nonpainful and Painful Phantom Sensations in a Preselected Sample of Child and Adolescent Amputees Reporting Phantom Limbs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To prospectively study factors associated with the occurrence of phantom sensations and pains in a pre-selected sample of child and adolescent amputees reporting phantom limbs. DESIGN: Prospective diary study over 1 month. PARTICIPANTS: Fourteen child and adolescent amputees from 10-18 years of age who were missing a limb due to trauma (n = 12) or congenital limb deficiency (n = 2), and who had previously reported having phantom sensations and pain. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Diary used to assess the occurrence of non-painful and painful phantom sensations. Items included age, sex, location and cause of amputation, past experience with stump pain and pre-amputation pain, and intensity, quality, duration, and triggers of the sensations and pains. RESULTS: Thirteen amputees reported having 104 incidents of non-painful phantom sensations with an average intensity of 4.17 (SD = 2.14) on a 0-10 rating scale. Fifty-three incidents of phantom pain with an average intensity of 6.43 (SD = 1.76) were recorded by 8 amputees. Both amputees with a congenital limb deficiency reported phantom phenomena. Girls reported more psychosocial triggers than did boys whereas boys were more likely than girls to report that they could not identify a trigger (P = 0.0001). Boys also reported a higher proportion of physical triggers than psychosocial triggers while there were no differences for girls (P = 0.0001). DISCUSSION: Child and adolescent amputees experience phantom sensations and pains on a regular basis over a 1-month period. Differences in triggers of phantom phenomena between boys and girls may be due to differences in activities, awareness, attribution, and willingness to report psychosocial triggers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".