MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2911235082 · doi:10.5772/intechopen.81133

Radio Frequency in the Treatment of Lumbar Facet Joint Arthropathy: Indications and Technical Notes

2019· book-chapter· en· W2911235082 on OpenAlexaff
Antonios El Helou, Charbel Fawaz, Robert Adams, Dhany Charest

Bibliographic record

VenueIntechOpen eBooks · 2019
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsHorizon Health NetworkMoncton Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFacet jointFacet (psychology)ArthropathySurgeryDegenerative disc diseaseLow back painBack painLumbarPhysical therapyOsteoarthritis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Low back pain is one of the most reported symptoms in adult life. Different etiologies have been evoked. Degenerative disease of the spine is the most common cause. Facet joint arthropathy is the second leading cause of low back pain in degenerative disease. Failure of medical treatment will lead to more invasive therapeutic option. Radio frequency is a well-known therapeutic option for refractory low back pain related to facet arthropathy. We present our results analyzed retrospectively between January 2015 and March 2018. In addition, we describe our workflow, our procedure technique, and our results. According to our findings, 73% improved their VAS pain score by at least 50% over 3 months. Twenty-seven percent failed to improve with this procedure. There was a 20-point improvement on the SF-36 QOL; the overall satisfaction was high. When patients are selected carefully, radio-frequency ablation technique is a safe and efficient procedure. Its complication rate and cost are low. We recommend it as one of the therapeutic tools in the management of low back pain related to facet joint disease.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.009

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIntechOpen eBooksSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207