Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Magnetic therapy has been used to manage a variety of chronic pain syndromes. Chronic pelvic pain (CPP) is a common disorder that does not always respond to conventional treatments. The primary aim of this study was to determine if applying magnets to abdominal trigger points would significantly relieve pain. Methods: Patients with CPP between 18 and 50 years of age were enrolled in a 2-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled study with an optional 2-week blinded continuation phase. Women who completed single-blind treatment were randomized to receive either active or placebo 500 Gauss magnets for 24 hours per day. The McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) and the Pain Disability Index (PDI) were used. Results: Fourteen subjects completed the 2-week study, and eight subjects completed the continuation phase. There was no significant treatment effect using repeated measures analysis. Of the eight treatment extenders, 60% with active magnets compared with 33% with placebo magnets had 50% reductions in MPQ and PDI scores. A power analysis revealed that 16 subjects were necessary to show a significant effect after 4 weeks of treatment. Blinding was more effective in the placebo group than in the active magnet group and at 2 weeks than at 4 weeks. Conclusions: This first controlled study of magnetic therapy for CPP suggests that pain relief is related to duration of exposure. The ongoing trial will report on the effect of longer exposure periods and blinding efficacy with a larger sample.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.005 | 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".