Occipital nerve stimulation for chronic migraine: A randomized trial on subthreshold stimulation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) may provide pain relief in migraine patients. In this double-blinded trial we investigated the significance of paresthesia and possible placebo effects. METHODS: Patients already treated with ONS reporting stable treatment effect were included. "Effective stimulation," "subthreshold stimulation" and "no stimulation" were compared. Patients cycled through all three treatment groups. Outcome was measured using the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, McGill Pain Questionnaire and SF-36. RESULTS: Eight patients were included, mean preoperative VAS was 8.20 ± 1.22. A significant improvement in pain was observed in favor of suprathreshold stimulation compared to subthreshold stimulation (1.98 ± 1.56 vs 5.65 ± 2.11). Pain also significantly improved under subthreshold stimulation compared to no stimulation (5.65 ± 2.11 vs 8.45 ± 0.99). No changes in SF-36 were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Paresthesia is not required to achieve pain reduction but suprathreshold stimulation yields better results, underlining the significance of stimulation parameter customization.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it