Neuromuscular electrical stimulation for pain management in combat‐related transtibial amputees during rehabilitation and prosthetic training
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
Military members with war‐related lower limb amputation experience a range of acute and chronic pain symptoms. The purpose of this study was to evaluate pain during 12 weeks of a military amputee rehabilitation program ( MARP ) pre‐ and post‐prosthesis. The data for this study were drawn from a randomized clinical trial comparing MARP supplemented with neuromuscular electrostimulation ( MARP + NMES , n = 23) to MARP alone ( n = 21) for service members with unilateral transtibial amputation. The McGill Pain Questionnaire ( MPQ ) and phantom limb pain/sensations were assessed at baseline, 3, 6, 9, and 12 weeks. Changes within‐ and between‐groups were analyzed with generalized mixed models. Participants reported mild‐to‐moderate pain at all visits, and improved significantly on the MPQ and frequency of phantom limb pain/sensations ( p < .001 for effect of time). Group by time interactions were not significant, indicating both groups showed similar improvement. Univariate tests showed the NMES + MARP group had lower pain intensity than MARP ‐only group at weeks 3 and 6. Participants in MARP demonstrated good overall pain control and reported reduced pain and fewer days with phantom limb pain/sensations over 12 weeks. Adding NMES to MARP may be beneficial in early rehabilitation, and NMES could potentially enhance physical therapy participation by decreasing 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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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