MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

New Approach for Spinal Cord Stimulation Trial

2005· article· en· W1984942324 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Gofeld, Eddie Cohen, David Niv

Bibliographic record

VenuePain Practice · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Management and Treatment
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSpinal cord stimulationTransmitterSpinal cordOutcome (game theory)StimulationPatient satisfactionClinical trialSpinal cord stimulatorSurgeryPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyTelecommunicationsComputer scienceInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spinal cord stimulation trial phase has remained unchanged for years. The common practice to connect a lead to an external transmitter is not optimal. The operational mode of transmitter is different from implanted system and external bulky device interferes with patient's daily routine. Optimization in the trial period may increase patient's satisfaction and improve outcome of upcoming permanent implantation. The proposed new trial design can be a simple and logical solution of the problem.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.842
Threshold uncertainty score0.305

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePain PracticeSame topicPain Management and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207