Predicting Response to Medial Branch Blocks: A Clinical Decision Making Tool
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic neck pain can lead to long-term disability and socio-economic burden. Several demographic, clinical, and psychosocial factors have been implicated in the development of neck pain disability. These factors may also influence management of neck pain. Optimal treatment often requires targeting interventions based on specific diagnosis. One of the most common cause of neck pain is cervical facet joint injury. Currently, the gold standard for diagnosing facetogenic injury is through the medial branch block (MBB) procedure. Though the procedure is relatively safe, it is still invasive and may result in adverse effects. In Canada, access to this procedure is limited through referrals to a specialist pain clinic with wait times of over six months. It is important to help reduce wait times and provide access to the MBB procedure for those likely to respond. The objective of the current study is two folds 1) to develop a comprehensive interdisciplinary regression model to better describe factors that correlate with neck pain disability (Chapter 2 and 3); and 2) to create a decision tree to help clinicians screen for facetogenic neck injury using a receiver operator curve (Chapter 4). In the first two studies of the dissertation, a model was developed using a hierarchical multiple regression. The final model which included: sex, pain duration, etiology, pain intensity, pressure pain detection threshold, number of restricted planes, Spurlings’s test, medical legal status, and pain catastrophizing, explained 62% of the variance in neck disability as measured by the Neck Disability Index (NDI). The last study provided a decision tree that included two factors, pain intensity and pain catastrophizing, to help clinicians identify those patients likely to respond to cervical MBBs. These findings have important implications for front-line clinicians to help rule out patients not likely to benefit from the cervical MBBs and potentially reducing wait times for those likely to respond. However, additional work is still warranted on both the regression model and the decision tree before endorsing it’s use in clinical practice.
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 | 0.009 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".