Increasing the repetition frequency of electric pulse delivery reduces unpleasant sensations that occur in electrochemotherapy.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Involuntary muscle contractions and painful sensations during electric pulse delivery are the most unpleasant side effects of electrochemotherapy. The aim of this study was to determine the nature of pain caused by the application of electric pulses and to evaluate patients tolerance to the standard electric pulses of 1 Hz repetition frequency and the new 5 kHz protocol. A train of eight electric pulses of 1 Hz and 5 kHz repetition frequencies was delivered to the forearms of 40 healthy volunteers. After the conclusion of each protocol the subjects had to complete the short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire with separate visual analog scales for pain intensity and unpleasantness. All subjects selected at least one superficial and one deep pain descriptor; 85% selected at least two superficial descriptor and 60% at least two deep description. The application of 5 kHz electric pulses was less unpleasant than the standard 1 Hz pulses; however, the pain intensity did not differ between the protocols. Significantly more subjects chose the new 5 kHz protocol as their choice of treatment (P = 0.017). The frequent use of deep descriptors in our study indicates that muscle contractions contribute to the discomfort felt by the subjects during the delivery of electric pulses. The new 5 kHz protocol considerably shortens the treatment session and is also better tolerated. Therefore, the new 5 kHz electrochemotherapy protocol should eventually replace the 1 Hz pulses as new standard.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".