Interventional procedures in children and adolescents with chronic non‐cancer pain as part of a multidisciplinary pain treatment program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Interventional procedures are part of multidisciplinary pain treatment programs to treat chronic non-cancer pain conditions in children and adolescents. However, the real benefit of these interventions remains unclear. AIMS: The aim of this study was to analyze the potential benefits of the interventional procedures in children and adolescents with chronic non-cancer pain in the setting of a multidisciplinary pain treatment program. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the charts of 98 children and adolescents receiving 314 diagnostic or therapeutic interventional procedures. We applied the following definitions of efficacy Short-term positive therapeutic effect: block that produced a minimum of 50% reduction in pain intensity for at least 4 weeks. Long-term positive therapeutic effect: a patient with a minimum of 50% reduction in pain intensity for at least 6 months Full recovery: a patient free of pain, not taking analgesics with normal physical and role functioning 6 months after the last procedure. RESULTS: Seventy-six of 112 diagnostic blocks (68%) were associated with a 50% reduction in pain intensity for at least 4 weeks after the procedure. One hundred and sixty-six of 202 therapeutics blocks (82%) were associated with a short-term benefit. Seventy-two of 98 patients (73%) referred a 50% reduction in their pain intensity (17%) or had full recovery 6 months after the procedures (56%) and a MPTP. Psychiatric comorbidity and more advanced age were factors associated with failure to respond to interventional procedures. CONCLUSION: The use of interventional procedures may represent a valid therapeutic option, associated with positive clinical outcomes within a multidisciplinary program.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".