MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141379298 · doi:10.2217/pmt.11.83

The Use of Spinal Cord Stimulation in Pain Management

2012· article· en· W2141379298 on OpenAlex
Krishna Kumar, Mariam Abbas, Syed Rizvi

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePain Management · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Management and Treatment
Canadian institutionsRegina General HospitalUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePain reliefSpinal cord stimulationPain managementStimulationChronic painPhysical medicine and rehabilitationIntractable painSpinal cordQuality of life (healthcare)Physical therapyNeuroscienceAnesthesiaPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY Pain is a complex behavior process, the anatomy and physiology of which is not completely understood, and is subject to continuous exploration and research. Following on the heels of Melzack and Wall's gate control theory of pain (1965), Shealey et al., in 1967, were the first to implant stimulation electrodes over the dorsal columns in an attempt to provide relief for patients with chronic, intractable pain. Since then, significant strides in both the technological and therapeutic sides have facilitated the evolution of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in the management of a variety of pain pathologies. High-quality evidence attests to the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of this modality. In contrast to conventional medical management, SCS offers long-lasting symptom relief, improved quality of life and functional capability, often achieving these goals at a reduced cost. This article illustrates the present status, challenges and future of SCS.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.732
Threshold uncertainty score0.631

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it