MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3095501264 · doi:10.1093/bmb/ldaa032

Ozone injection therapy for intervertebral disc herniation

2020· review· en· W3095501264 on OpenAlexaff
Filippo Migliorini, Nicola Maffulli, Jörg Eschweiler, Marcel Bestch, Markus Tingart, Alice Baroncini

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Medical Bulletin · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical and Biological Ozone Research
Canadian institutionsWomen's College HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOzone therapyMedicineLow back painPercutaneousLumbar disc herniationIntervertebral Disc DisplacementSurgeryDisc herniationPhysical therapyLumbarIntensive care medicineLumbar vertebraePathologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Lumbar disc herniation (LDH) is a common cause of low back pain (LBP). Recently, in the setting of LBP caused by LDH, a growing interest in ozone therapies has been observed. SOURCE OF DATA: Recent published literatures. AREAS OF AGREEMENT: Being low back pain more common in the elderlies, exploring conservative alternatives to the surgical intervention is of especial interest. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY: Efficacy and feasibility of ozone injections for LDH is debated. Several clinical studies showed controversial results, and the true benefit has not yet been clarified. GROWING POINTS: Systematically summarize current evidences, analyze the quantitative available data and investigate the role of percutaneous ozone therapy for LDH. AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH: Current evidence encourage the use of ozone therapy for LBP from LDH. These conclusions should be interpret in light of the limitations of the present study.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations36
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Medical BulletinSame topicMedical and Biological Ozone ResearchFrench-language works237,207