P.085 Spinal cord stimulator for chronic pain syndromes: a national awareness survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The expansion of neuromodulation intervention for complex pain syndromes has been signifcant in the last few decades. Considering the increased load of patients, we thought about evaluating the level of awareness among different medical experts to help assessing their familiarity with spinal cord stimulator (SCS). Methods: Survey has been sent to general practitioners, family physicians, pain specialists and spine surgeons. The main outlets of the survey aims to assess the followings: The main source of their knowledge about SC Familiarity with candidates who may benefit from SC Introducing the concept of SC to their patients as an adjunctive treatment Frequency of patients’ referral for SC Main reason for referring their patients Familiarity with centres providing SCS Results: EResults will be provided upon analysing the data from the collected surveys. Conclusions: The expansion in neurmodulation is expected to help patients with intractable pain syndromes. Hence, the survey would potentially help to explore the deficiencies in health workers awareness about SCS and outline future directions toward proper patients counseling and optimising their referral to neuromodulation centres.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".