Intrathecal glycine for pain and dystonia in complex regional pain syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since glycinergic neurotransmission plays an important inhibitory role in the processing of sensory and motor information, intrathecal glycine (ITG) administration may be a potential therapy for both pain and movement disorders in patients with complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS). Aims of the current study, which is the first report on ITG in humans, were to evaluate its safety and efficacy. ITG treatment during 4 weeks was studied in CRPS patients with dystonia in the period before they received intrathecal baclofen treatment. Twenty patients were assessed and after exclusion of one patient, the remaining 19 patients were randomized in a double-blind placebo-controlled crossover study. Safety was assessed by clinical evaluation, blood examinations and electrocardiograms. Efficacy measures involved pain (numeric rating scale, McGill pain questionnaire), movement disorders (Burke-Fahn-Marsden dystonia rating scale, unified myoclonus rating scale, tremor research group rating scale), activity (Radboud skills questionnaire, walking ability questionnaire), and a clinical global impression (CGI) and patient's global impression score (PGI). Treatment-emergent adverse events were generally mild to moderate and not different from placebo treatment. During ITG treatment growth hormone levels were slightly increased. Although there was a trend to worsening on the CGI and PGI during ITG treatment, there were no significant differences between ITG and placebo treatment in any of the outcomes. ITG given over 4 weeks was ineffective for pain or dystonia in CRPS. Although no serious adverse events occurred, further studies are required to rule out potential neurotoxicity of ITG.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".