Caudal Epidural Steroid Application at Chronic Low Back and Leg Pain: Experience of Fifty Cases and the Analysis of Pain and Satisfaction of the Cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In this article, we present the results of 50 patients whom we treated with epidural steroid injection, and our experience on the subject. Methods: Fifty patients who were followed in our clinic between January 2011 and August 2011 were assessed retrospectively. These were the patients who had chronic low back and leg pain due to lomber spinal degeneration and for whom operation was not recommended and lomber caudal epidural steroid was applied. Results: In our study, 50 patients having low back pain or leg pain or low back and leg pain together were assessed, and regression at rVAS score of 86% of the patients was detected for a short period after the intervention. VAS scores of 14% of the patients were not different. On long-term follow-up rVAS score analysis of the patients showed regression at 74% of the cases. Conclusion: Caudal steroid injection is a safe and efficient treatment method for the patients who have radicular pain, who do not respond to conservative treatment and for whom surgery is not recommended. Randomized double blind studies are needed to assess its superiority to other conservative methods. J Neurol Res. 2013;3(6):173-178 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4021/jnr212w
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".