Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of Eye Movements of Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) therapy in the treatment of the phantom limp pain. Method: Participants of this study consist of amputation applied 14 inpatients in the Orthopaedics and Traumatology Department of Gülhane Military Hospital. Amputation was applied to four patients with diabetic foot and ten patients with trauma. Five patients had three sessions , eight patients had five sessions and two patients had six sessions of EMDR applications. The treatment was ended when patients expressed that they were not in pain. Following amputation, McGill Melzack Pain Questionnaire, State Anxiety Inventory (STAI-I), the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) and the Symptom Checklist (SCL-90-R) were applied at the end of the first week before EMDR applications and just after the EMDR applications. These tests were given to the patients who were invited to control again after one month and three months. The SCL-90-R was applied again in the third month control. Results: It was seen that phantom pain significantly decreased before the treatment, among shortly after, one month and 3 months later controls. Conclusion: In this study, EMDR therapy has been found to provide a significant improvement over the phantom pain. Based on the findings, EMDR therapy has been shown effective with early application on phantom pain.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".