Amitriptyline treatment of chronic pain in patients with temporomandibular disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Randomized clinical trials of amitriptyline will require data from pilot studies to be used for sample size estimates, but such data are lacking. This study investigated the 6‐week and 1‐year effectiveness of low dose amitriptyline (10–30 mg) for the treatment of patients with chronic temporomandibular disorder (TMD) pain. Based on clinical examination, patients were divided into two groups: myofascial and mixed (myofascial and temporomandibular joint disorders). Baseline pain was assessed by a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain intensity and by the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ). Depression was assessed by the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) short form. Patient assessment of global treatment effectiveness was obtained after 6 weeks and 1 year of treatment by using a five‐point ordinal scale: (1) worse, (2) unchanged, (3) minimally improved, (4) moderately improved, (5) markedly improved. The results showed a significant reduction for all pain scores after 6 weeks and 1 year post‐treatment. The depression scores changed in depressed but not in non‐depressed patients. Global treatment effectiveness showed significant improvement 6 weeks and 1 year post‐treatment. However, pain and global treatment effectiveness were less improved at 1 year than at 6 weeks.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".