Pulsed Radiofrequency for Chronic Testicular Pain—A Preliminary 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
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) of spermatic cord in the treatment of chronic testicular pain. DESIGN: Ten patients with chronic testicular pain were treated with PRF stimulation of the spermatic cord. A radiofrequency probe placed percutaneously into the spermatic cord was used to deliver four 120-second cycles of 20-millisecond pulses at 2 Hz. Test stimulation was first used to confirm the precise placement of the probe. The short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire was used to assess pain before treatment and at 3 months. Patients who had experienced improvement were followed up by telephone, to determine whether pain relief was sustained. RESULTS: Ten patients were entered into the study but one was lost to follow-up. Of the nine patients evaluated, four had complete resolution of pain, while one had partial pain relief. Three patients experienced no change and one reported that his pain was worse. All patients who experienced complete and partial pain relief continued to do so at a mean long-term follow-up of 9.6 months (range 3-14 months). There were no complications observed immediately or during the follow-up period. CONCLUSION: In this pilot study, pain scores improved in five out of nine patients. PRF of spermatic cord appears to be a safe minimally invasive outpatient procedure that should be investigated further with placebo-controlled trials.
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 | 0.022 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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