Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of gabapentin in adults with phantom limb pain. DATA SOURCES: A PubMed search (1966-September 2012) was conducted using the key words phantom limb pain and gabapentin. Search limits were English language, humans, adult, clinical trials, and randomized controlled trial. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Randomized controlled trials that studied the effectiveness of gabapentin in adults with phantom limb pain were identified and selected. Primary outcomes were associated with pain. Pediatric population studies were excluded. DATA SYNTHESIS: Three studies, with a total of 89 patients, were reviewed. All studies employed a pain rating scale to determine the primary outcome. Results varied. One crossover study reported a significant difference in pain intensity at 6 weeks compared with baseline (p < 0.01) and compared with placebo (p = 0.03). Another crossover study did not find a significant difference for the primary outcome of pain intensity, but did report a significant decrease in a secondary outcome measure related to pain. The third study displayed a decreased use of rescue pain medications by patients in the gabapentin treatment group. Heterogeneity of the study designs precludes a direct comparison of the results. Several confounding factors that may affect the interpretation of these results include the use of rescue pain medication, small sample size, short-term treatment, and different pain scales. CONCLUSIONS: Given the results of these trials, oral gabapentin in patients aged 18 years or older may decrease phantom limb pain. A strong recommendation for the effectiveness of gabapentin in phantom limb pain cannot be ascertained until more methodologically sound studies are executed in this population.
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 | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".