Hypnosis in the management of persistent idiopathic orofacial pain – Clinical and psychosocial findings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This controlled and patient blinded study tested the effect of hypnosis on persistent idiopathic orofacial pain (PIOP) in terms of clinical and psychosocial findings. Forty-one PIOP were randomized to active hypnotic intervention or simple relaxation as control for five individual 1-h sessions. Primary outcome was average pain intensity scored three times daily in a pain diary using visual analogue scale (VAS). Secondary outcome measures were pain quality assessed by McGill pain questionnaire (MPQ), psychological symptoms assessed by symptom check list (SCL), quality of life assessed by SF36, sleep quality, and consumption of analgesic. Data were compared between groups before and after treatment using ANOVA models and paired t-tests. The change in VAS pain scores from baseline to the last treatment (t4) was (33.1+/-7.4%) in the hypnosis group and (3.2+/-5.4%) in the control group (P<0.03). In the hypnosis group, highly hypnotic susceptible patients had greater decreases in VAS pain scores (55.0+/-12.3%) when compared to less susceptible patients (17.9+/-6.7%) (P<0.02). After the last treatment there were also statistically significant differences between groups in perceived pain area (MPQ) and the use of weak analgesics (P<0.03). There were no statistically significant changes in SCL or SF36 scores from baseline to t4. In conclusion, hypnosis seems to offer clinically relevant pain relief in PIOP, particularly in highly susceptible patients. However, stress coping skills and unresolved psychological problems need to be included in a comprehensive management plan in order also to address psychological symptoms and quality of life.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".