Non-invasive stimulation techniques to relieve abdominal/pelvic pain: Is more always better?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic abdominal and pelvic pain is a common condition that has significant impact on quality of life, and causes billions of dollars in direct and indirect costs. Emerging data suggest that transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), alone or in combination with transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), could be a promising therapeutic avenue to reduce chronic pain. The encouraging results coming from these studies prompted us to try combining TENS and tDCS in 4 of our patients who suffered from chronic abdominal/pelvic pain and to compare the effect with 5 other patients who received TENS alone. Pain intensity was assessed with a visual analog scale before, during and after the stimulation. We observed that there was a slight decrease in pain which was similar in both patient groups (TENS alone and TENS combined with tDCS). These observations suggest that combining TENS and tDCS in patients suffering from chronic pelvic and/or abdominal pain produces no additional benefit, compared to TENS alone. Future studies, looking at the effect of several/consecutive TENS and tDCS sessions should be conducted.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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".