Using Peripheral Stimulation to Reduce thePain of C2-Mediated Occipital Headaches: APreliminary Report
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
BACKGROUND: Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) is an accepted treatment for neuropathic pain. Recent studies have focused on its potential for relieving headache pain. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effectiveness of PNS in reducing occipital headache pain. DESIGN: A prospective, 12-week pilot study involving 11 patients evaluated before and after implantation of PNS systems to treat C2-mediated occipital headaches. METHODS: Prior to and at 4 and 12 weeks after implantation, patients completed the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and Present Pain Index (PPI). Patients also answered questionnaires and kept diaries to record stimulator use, medication consumption, and numbers of headaches. RESULTS: A comparison of pre- and post-implantation evaluations showed statistically significant declines in scores on the SF-MPQ (64%; p = 0.0013), VAS (67%; p < 0.0001), and PPI (68%; p = 0.0009). Most patients (91% and 64% respectively) reported reductions in medication use and numbers of headaches. Patients also reported a reduction in headache symptoms and the impact of headaches on activities. Two adverse events were encountered, one due to a loose connection and, the other caused by lead migration. CONCLUSIONS: PNS reduced headache pain, headache frequency and medication use.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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