Analgesic effect of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in patients with chronic low back pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of the present study was to assess the benefits of 1-week repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in patients with chronic low back pain (LBP). The visual analogue scale (VAS), Short Form McGill pain questionnaire (SF-MPQ), and Short Form 36 Health Survey were used to evaluate the effect of this treatment. Eighty-two patients diagnosed with LBP were divided randomly into three groups: rTMS-treated group, sham group, and physical therapy-treated group. We observed a significant reduction in VAS and SF-MPQ scores in the rTMS-treated group, but not in the sham group. Moreover, patients who received rTMS had a lower mean pain score than patients treated with physical therapy. Our study suggests that rTMS produces safe, significant, and long-term relief in patients with LBP without evident side effects. This study shows for the first time that long-term repeated sessions of rTMS decrease pain perception of LBP. Bioelectromagnetics. 37:527-535, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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) | 0.001 | 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".