Effects of transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation and magneto-thermo-vibration therapy on central pain in spinal cord injury patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To observe the effects of transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation (TENS) combined with magneto-thermo-vibration therapy on central pain of patients with spinal cord injury(SCI). Method: Thirty-six cases with central pain after SCI were randomly divided into three groups:group A, group B and group C. Group A (observation group) was treated with TENS and magneto-thermo-vibration therapy. Group B was treated with TENS. Group C was treated with magneto -thermo -vibration therapy. All patients were assessed with McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) before and after treatments. Result: For the values of 6 parameters of pain, there were significantly decrease in patients after treatments, and values of parameters of pain in group B were lower than those in group C, but there was no significant difference between the two groups. Values of parameters in group A were significantly lower than those in group B or group C (P0.01). Conclusion: The effects of TENS therapy combined with magneto -thermo -vibration therapy on central pain in SCI patients are better than that of TENS therapy or magneto-thermo-vibration therapy alone.
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) | 0.001 | 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".