MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2341588623 · doi:10.1093/pm/pnv060

Questions Regarding “Pulsed Radiofrequency for Chronic Intractable Lumbosacral Radicular Pain: A Six-Month Cohort Study”

2015· letter· en· W2341588623 on OpenAlexaff
Anuj Bhatia

Bibliographic record

VenuePain Medicine · 2015
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity of TorontoWomen's College Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLumbosacral jointPulsed radiofrequencyRadicular painCohortCohort studyChronic painAnesthesiaSurgeryPhysical therapyInternal medicineLumbarPain relief

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dear Editor, I read the paper on the results of pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) for chronic intractable pain by Van Boxem et al. [1] with great interest. I congratulate the authors on this excellent prospective observational study with relevant inclusion and exclusion criteria. However, I have some questions and comments regarding the methodology and results of the study. First, the flexibility of conventional medical management (CMM) makes it difficult to interpret outcomes following PRF in participants in the study. I wonder whether allowing participants only specific analgesics (e.g., tramadol) in the post-procedure phase, measuring their mean daily doses, and limiting the use and …

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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.150
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.279 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePain MedicineSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207