Phantom pain decreases with vibrating silicone liner in lower limb amputee: a prospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The purpose of this study was to design, construct, and evaluate the effectiveness of a vibrating silicone liner on the phantom pain of traumatic below-knee amputees. Methods: Twelve unilateral below-knee amputees who had phantom pain and did not use another treatment participated in this study. The patients were asked to use vibrating silicone liners for three 10-minute sessions daily for 30 days. The severity of pain was evaluated by the short form of the McGill Pain Questionnaire before and after 30 days of using the vibrating silicone liner. Results: The mental aspect of pain intensity, pain intensity based on visual analog scale (VAS), momentary pain intensity, and overall pain intensity decreased significantly after 30 days of using the vibrating silicone liner (P<0.05). Also, there was a significant correlation between initial pain score and psychological aspect of pain (P=0.007). Conclusions: Using a vibrating silicone liner for three 10-minute sessions daily for a period of 30 days had a significant effect on the reduction of all the components of phantom pain in the patients who were included in this study. It seems that the vibrating silicone liner reduced phantom pain by creating heat, controlling gate of pain in the spinal cord, and psychological effects. Level of Evidence: Level II
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".