Duration of intra-operative stimulation as a predictor of success of spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain syndromes
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
AIM: Electrical stimulation of the dorsal column of the spinal cord stands out as a major method of neuromodulation. Its popularity stems from the long lasting support to the "gate theory" in which electrical stimulation of the gate prevents passage of nociceptive impulses and reduces pain sensation. There is little known about the effect of the duration of intraoperative stimulation (IOS) trial on the success of the spinal cord stimulation trial. MATERIAL and METHODS: We present our result on 58 patients with spinal cord stimulation implantation and their IOS trials and short-term follow up. RESULTS: The major finding of this study is that the longer the IOS trial, the higher the chances for failure of SCS. Our study also suggests that tripolar spinal cord stimulation leads present a more reliable option for long-term success of the spinal cord stimulation (SCS). CONCLUSION: The duration of IOS seems to influence the result of the initial trial of SCS. IOS should be between 30-60 minutes to optimize the placement of the lead for better correlation with the SCS trial.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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