MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2790847541 · doi:10.1213/ane.0000000000002820

Effects of Electrical Transcutaneous Vagus Nerve Stimulation on the Perceived Intensity of Repetitive Painful Heat Stimuli: A Blinded Placebo- and Sham-Controlled Randomized Crossover Investigation

2018· article· en· W2790847541 on OpenAlexaff
Henriette Janner, Catharina Klausenitz, Nancy Gürtler, Klaus Hahnenkamp, Taras Usichenko

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesia & Analgesia · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVagus Nerve Stimulation Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePlaceboCrossover studyAnesthesiaAnalysis of varianceStimulationRepeated measures designTranscutaneous electrical nerve stimulationVagus nerve stimulationIntensity (physics)Randomized controlled trialPhysical therapyVagus nerveInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation (TVNS) is a promising treatment for acute and chronic pain. However, experimental studies yielded controversial results. We examined if TVNS reduces the perceived intensity of repetitive painful heat stimulation and temporal summation of pain (TSP) in healthy volunteers in comparison with placebo and sham stimulation, as well as no intervention. METHODS: In 4 sessions, 90 heat pulse stimuli at individual pain tolerance temperature were applied to the ventral forearm of 49 healthy volunteers (25 women) using a Contact Heat Evoked Potential Stimulator thermode (Medoc, Ramat Yishai, Israel). Pain intensity was assessed with verbal ratings on a numeric pain scale (0-100) at every tenth heat pulse. After the first session in which pain intensities without intervention were evaluated, participants completed 3 sessions in a single-blinded randomized crossover manner: (1) sham stimulation applied at the earlobes, (2) placebo stimulation (inactive device), or (3) TVNS applied at the cymbas conchae. Primary data were analyzed using analysis of variance for repeated measures and t test for paired samples. RESULTS: Pain intensity decreased during all interventions as compared to no intervention (ηp = 0.22, P < .001; mean difference TVNS versus no intervention 9.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.6-15.4; P < .001). Hypoalgesic effect of TVNS was better than that of placebo and sham in men before the onset of TSP (mean differences for TVNS versus placebo 6.2; 95% CI, 0.2-12.1; TVNS versus sham 6.2; 95% CI, 0.2-12.1; P < .05). In women, TSP response under TVNS was decreased if compared to no intervention (median difference, 7.5; 95% CI, 3.5-15.0; P = .003). CONCLUSIONS: TVNS, placebo, and sham stimulation exerted comparable effects under experimental heat pain stimulation. Only in male participants, TVNS was superior to sham and placebo conditions in the reduction of heat pain before the onset of TSP.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations50
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesia & AnalgesiaSame topicVagus Nerve Stimulation ResearchFrench-language works237,207