Neuropathic Pain in Patients with Upper-Extremity Nerve Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this review was to present an analysis of the literature of the outcome studies reported in patients following traumatic upper-extremity (UE) nerve injuries (excluding amputation), to assess the presence of an association between neuropathic pain and outcome in patients following traumatic UE nerve injuries, and to provide recommendations for inclusion of more comprehensive outcome measures by clinicians who treat these patients. SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS: A Medline and CINAHL literature search retrieved 48 articles. This review identified very few studies of patients with peripheral nerve injury that reported neuropathic pain. When pain was reported, visual analogue or numeric rating scales were most frequently used; standardized questionnaires measuring pain or psychosocial function were rarely administered. Recent evidence shows substantial long-term disability and pain in patients following peripheral nerve injury. RECOMMENDATION: To better understand neuropathic pain in patients following peripheral nerve injury, future outcome studies should include valid, reliable measures of physical impairment, pain, disability, health-related quality of life, and psychosocial functioning.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".