Trajectory of phantom limb pain relief using mirror therapy: Retrospective analysis of two studies
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Research indicates that mirror therapy reduces phantom limb pain (PLP). Objectives were to determine when mirror therapy works in those who respond to treatment, the relevance of baseline PLP to when pain relief occurs, and what pain symptoms respond to mirror therapy. METHODS: Data from two independent cohorts with unilateral lower limb amputation were analyzed for this study (n=33). Mirror therapy consisted of 15-min sessions in which amputees performed synchronous movements of the phantom and intact legs/feet. PLP was measured using a visual analogue scale and the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire. RESULTS: The severity of PLP at the beginning of treatment predicted when pain relief occurred. Those with low baseline PLP experienced a reduction (p<0.05) in PLP by session 7 of treatment, those with medium baseline PLP experienced pain relief by session 14 of treatment, and those with high baseline PLP experienced pain relief by session 21 of treatment. Mirror therapy reduced throbbing, shooting, stabbing, sharp, cramping, aching, tender, splitting, tiring/exhausting, and punishing-cruel pain symptoms. CONCLUSION: The degree of PLP at baseline predicts when mirror therapy relieves pain. IMPLICATIONS: This article indicates that the degree of baseline PLP affects when mirror therapy relieves pain: relief occurs by session 7 in patients with low PLP but by session 21 in patients with high PLP. Clinicians should anticipate slower pain relief in patients who begin treatment with high levels of pain. ClinicalTrials.gov numbers:NCT00623818 and NCT00662415.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it