MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3082869744 · doi:10.1093/milmed/usaa200

Evaluation of a Functional Restoration Program at Fort Bliss Interdisciplinary Pain Management Clinic

2020· article· en· W3082869744 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Khan Thi Nguyen, Daniel W Beauchamp, Ursel Lovett, Demitris Tillman, Aeneas Janze, Alberto Ruiz, Rocío Morón, Wen Chun Ting, Eric B Wilson, D. J. Wright, Christina Edlin

Bibliographic record

VenueMilitary Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePhysical therapyRehabilitationMilitary medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: In partnership with the Veterans Health Administration, in 2010, the Department of Defense/Veterans Health Administration Pain Management Task Force Final Report recommended a comprehensive pain management plan. Consequently, each Army medical center established an Interdisciplinary Pain Management Clinic (IPMC) for pain treatment, and each IPMC implements a multidisciplinary outpatient functional restoration program (FRP) as an alternative to or in addition to pharmacological therapy. This article reports our first-year FRP results at William Beaumont Army Medical Center IPMC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The FRP is designed to improve the participants' functionality and quality of life, both personally and professionally. Service members with chronic pain were evaluated for psychological and physical clearance before enrollment in an intense and structured FRP for 8 hours a day over 3 weeks. The program focused on physical and occupational exercises, yoga, acupuncture, and educational classes regarding pain medications, nutrition, and coping skills. The resulting data were analyzed using paired two-tailed t-tests with a predetermined significance level of 0.05 to examine the participants' mean changes upon completion of the FRP. RESULTS: The pre-post comparison indicated significant improvement after completion of the FRP. The fear-avoidance of physical activities and the fear of movement scores were reduced significantly (P < 0.05); the Canadian occupational performance and satisfaction, physical strength and endurance were improved significantly (P < 0.0001) in sit-to-stand, plank balance, lifting and carrying, and 10-minute 7-to-1 Pyramid tests; however, fear-avoidance of work was not significantly reduced (P = 0.2319). CONCLUSIONS: Because of the lack of randomization and the small number of subjects (N = 32, 7 cohorts), unknown sources of bias may have influenced the results. Despite these limitations, the results from this report support the program's effectiveness and are consistent with the outcomes from FRP programs in other military facilities and in civilian studies.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.804
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.306 · 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.

Study designObservational
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

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMilitary MedicineSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207