RETRACTED ARTICLE: Biofeedback for Pain Management in Traumatised Refugees
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.
Post-publication record
Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic pain (CP) and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are both frequent and often comorbid in refugees. To date, few controlled trials have studied the efficacy of treatments targeting this comorbidity; no treatment guidelines yet exist. The authors examined the feasibility and efficacy of short-term cognitive behavioural biofeedback (BF) addressing CP in traumatised refugees. The sample comprised 11 severely traumatised refugees with CP and PTSD (mean age = 36 years, SD = 6), who underwent assessment with the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview, Posttraumatic Diagnostic Scale, Pain Disability Index, and Visual Rating Scale. Additionally, coping with pain and psychotherapy tolerance were assessed. Acceptance of BF was high. Pre-post effects were small to medium for increased pain management and associated heart rate reactivity but large for coping with pain. The results encourage further research to confirm whether BF is indicated as a treatment component, but not a stand-alone treatment, for traumatised refugees with comorbid CP and PTSD.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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