MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3043122543 · doi:10.1213/xaa.0000000000001267

Transforaminal Sacral Nerve Neurostimulation for the Treatment of Intractable Chronic Pelvic Pain: Case Report

2020· article· en· W3043122543 on OpenAlexaff
Elías Atencio Samaniego, Andrés Rocha‐Romero, Rodrigo Alberto Benavides Cordero, Priodarshi Roychoudhury, Ulises Ochoa Deibis, Evelyn Rios Caballero

Bibliographic record

VenueA&A Practice · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrinary Bladder and Prostate Research
Canadian institutionsToronto General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeurostimulationMedicinePelvic painSacral nerve stimulationPercutaneousSurgeryIntractable painNeuromodulationChronic painAnesthesiaPhysical therapyStimulationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article aims to report the successful treatment of 2 patients with intractable chronic pelvic pain treated with transforaminal sacral nerve neurostimulation. At 18-month follow-up, both patients reported significant pain relief and improved performance. The implantation of a percutaneous transforaminal sacral nerve neurostimulator is usually reserved for the treatment of bladder incontinence. In both reported cases, it proved to be useful for pain management. This technique should be evaluated in clinical trials.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.714
Threshold uncertainty score0.308

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueA&A PracticeSame topicUrinary Bladder and Prostate ResearchFrench-language works237,207