Effects of Cortical and Peripheral Electrical Stimulation on Brain Activity in Individuals with Chronic Low Back Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Neuroscience studies suggest that Chronic Low Back Pain (CLBP) is associated with central sensitization, and maladaptive reorganization of the brain; this introduced a new target for LBP treatment. Studies revealed that cortical and peripheral electrical stimulation can be beneficial in regulating brain neuronal activity. However, there is a scarcity of evidence to support the effects of cortical and peripheral stimulation on brain function in patients with CLBP. This double-blind randomized controlled trial investigated the immediate and short-term effects of cortical and peripheral stimulation applied alone and combined on brain activity, pain, and function in patients with CLBP. Methods: Twenty-seven patients with CLBP were randomly assigned into three intervention groups using covariate adaptive randomization. The intervention groups received 10 sessions of treatment for 5 days/week as follows: 1: Real Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) and real Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS); group 2: Real tDCS and sham TENS; and group 3: Sham tDCS and real TENS. Brian waves activity, pain intensity, functional ability, and pain threshold were assessed before, immediately after the first session of treatment, as well as one day and 1 month after the interventions. Conclusion: The findings of this study provide insight into the effects of cortical and peripheral stimulation applied alone or combined on brain function in patients with CLBP. It also improves our understanding about potential association between CLBP and cortical plasticity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".