Ethical examination of sham surgeries for relief of chronic pain in clinical practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Treatment of chronic pain is challenging for both patients and physicians alike. Interventional management of pain is often indicated for patients who are not helped by pharmacotherapy, and can include procedures such as neurectomy and vertebroplasty. However, randomized controlled trials of these procedures often demonstrate a significant improvement in symptomology among patients in the control arm who have instead undergone a sham surgery, which eliminates the perceived surgical steps required for benefit but mimics the surgery in every other way. We examine whether an ethical framework might exist for sham surgeries to hypothetically be performed for clinical benefit of chronic pain. Once all evidence-based options are exhausted, performing sham surgeries may be justified under beneficence and non-maleficence since sham procedures are often equally efficacious but considerably safer than their true intervention counterparts. Physicians must only recommend such procedures with the intent of ameliorating patient suffering. Some degree of disclosure of a possible placebo effect prior to a sham surgery may satisfy the principle of autonomy while still maintaining the placebo response.
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 | 0.277 | 0.427 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".