MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2377942225

Treatment of cervicogenic headache by stellate ganglion block combined with modified cervical paravertebral nerve block

2009· article· en· W2377942225 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dai Shuang-b

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Clinical Anesthesiology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCervicogenic headacheVisual analogue scaleCervical NerveNerve blockAnesthesiaRange of motionNeck painStellate ganglionSurgeryNerve rootMigraine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective To compare the clinical efficacy of stellate ganglion block(SGB) combined with modified cervical paravertebral nerve block(CPNB) and SGB combined with peripheral nerve block(PNB) in the treatment of cervicogenic headache.Methods A total of 136 patients with cervicogenic headache was randomly divided into two groups with 68 cases each.The patients in group A received SGB combined with CPNB and those in group B received SGB combined with PNB.All patients were treated every other day for four times as a course of treatment.The short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire and reduced range of the motion in the neck(ROM) score were evaluated before and after treatment.Results Compared to before,the pain rating index(PRI),the present pain index(PPI),visual analogue scale(VAS),ROM scores were lower after treatment(P0.05) in two groups.PRI,PPI,VAS,ROM scores were lower and the cure rate was higher in group A than those in group B after treatment(P0.05).Conclusion SGB combined with CPNB is better than SGB combined with PNB in the treatment of cervicogenic headache.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Clinical AnesthesiologySame topicSpine and Intervertebral Disc PathologyFrench-language works237,207