<b>Clinical chart review of spinal cord injured pain </b>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clinical chart review of 49 cases with spinal cord injured pain was performed. Retrospective data about the characteristics of patients, the level of injury, the completeness of injury and the etiology was collected. Of pathogenesis of spinal cord injury, degenerative disease was 25 subjects (51%), 12 was traumatic (24%), 4 was vascular (8%) and 4 was neoplastic disease (8%). Thirty two subjects have injured at the cervical level (65%), 13 at the thoracic level (27%) and 4 at the lumbosacral level (8%). At-level neuropathic pain was present in 19 subjects (39%), below-level neuropathic pain was present in 42 subjects (85%). Gabapentin was effective in 24 patients (41%), clonazepam was effective in 17 (30%) and tricyclic antidepressants was effective in 21 patients (38%). We analized relationship between the characteristics of SCI pain and the result of various evaluation; Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale (HAD), Pain Disability Assessment Scale (PDAS) and McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ).
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".