MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2285480060 · doi:10.14412/2074-2711-2010-86

Cervicogenic headache: the specific features of complex therapy with Amelotex and CompligamV

2010· article· en· W2285480060 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mariya Lvovna Pospelova

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology neuropsychiatry Psychosomatics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMigraine and Headache Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVisual analogue scaleAntithrombinBrief Pain InventoryVon Willebrand factorChronic painAnesthesiaMcGill Pain QuestionnaireInternal medicinePhysical therapyHeparin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An open-labeled study of the efficiency and tolerance of complex injection therapy with Amelotex in a dose of 15 mg/day for 6 days and CompligamV in a dose of one ampoule for 15 days was conduced in 30 patients (24 women and 6 men) aged 45 to 71 years with chronic cervicogenic headache (CGH) (its duration of 2 months to 10 years). The Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), and the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) developed by C.S. Cleeland were used to rate different characteristics of pain and to evaluate the efficiency of treatment. Laboratory redetermination of the levels of von Willebrand factor, factor VIII, antithrombin III, D-dimer, and homocysteine was made in 10 patients to study hemostatic parameters. Combined injection therapy with Amelotex and CompligamV in patients with CGH reduced the intensity of acute and chronic pain, by affecting both the sensory-discriminative and affective-motivational pain components. The therapy did not worsen endothelial dysfunction, a marker of activated blood coagulation; there was a rise in the content of antithrombin III (within the normal range). Combined injection therapy with Amelotex and CompligamV was observed to be well tolerated and to cause no adverse reactions.

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 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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.414
Threshold uncertainty score0.716

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurology neuropsychiatry PsychosomaticsSame topicMigraine and Headache StudiesFrench-language works237,207