MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2806888518 · doi:10.1172/jci94003

A review of current theories and treatments for phantom limb pain

2018· review· en· W2806888518 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Investigation · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Management and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentHealth Science Center, University of TennesseeU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
KeywordsPhantom limbPhantom limb painAmputationPhantom painFeelingDorsal root ganglionPhysical medicine and rehabilitationNeuroscienceMedicinePeripheral nervous systemNervous systemQuality of life (healthcare)Central nervous systemDorsumPsychologySurgeryAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Following amputation, most amputees still report feeling the missing limb and often describe these feelings as excruciatingly painful. Phantom limb sensations (PLS) are useful while controlling a prosthesis; however, phantom limb pain (PLP) is a debilitating condition that drastically hinders quality of life. Although such experiences have been reported since the early 16th century, the etiology remains unknown. Debate continues regarding the roles of the central and peripheral nervous systems. Currently, the most posited mechanistic theories rely on neuronal network reorganization; however, greater consideration should be given to the role of the dorsal root ganglion within the peripheral nervous system. This Review provides an overview of the proposed mechanistic theories as well as an overview of various treatments for PLP.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.859
Threshold uncertainty score0.689

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.319
GPT teacher head0.533
Teacher spread0.214 · 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