MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3183415687 · doi:10.1159/000517426

Age as an Independent Predictor of Adult Spinal Cord Stimulation Pain Outcomes

2021· article· en· W3183415687 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueStereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Management and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMcGill Pain QuestionnaireOswestry Disability IndexBeck Depression InventoryDepression (economics)Pain catastrophizingPhysical therapyRating scaleBrief Pain InventoryChronic painAnesthesiaVisual analogue scaleAnxietyLow back painPsychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an efficacious chronic pain treatment most commonly used in middle-aged patients. Results from previous studies that investigated SCS′ effects in older patient populations have been equivocal. We examine whether SCS outcomes correlate with age. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> We retrospectively examined prospectively collected outcomes from 189 patients who underwent SCS at Albany Medical Center between 2012 and 2020. The patients completed the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), and Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) preoperatively and 1 year postoperatively. The mean percent change in each outcome was determined and compared via a regression analysis to determine relationships between patient age and each respective outcome metrics. Demographics were compared between patients aged under 65 versus those aged 65 and older via χ<sup>2</sup> tests. <b><i>Results:</i></b> All subjects demonstrated the expected improvement on NRS, BDI, PCS, and MPQ from baseline to 1-year follow-up, with several demonstrating statistically significant changes: NRS-worst pain (18.66%, <i>p</i> < 0.001), NRS-least pain (26.9%, <i>p</i> < 0.001), NRS-average pain (26.9%, <i>p</i> < 0.01), NRS-current pain (26.4%, <i>p</i> < 0.001), ODI (19.6%, <i>p</i> < 0.001), PCS (29.8%, <i>p</i> < 0.001), and MPQ (29.4%, <i>p</i> < 0.001). There was no significant difference between patients aged under 65 versus those aged 65 and older based on lead type (<i>p</i> = 0.454). Six patients (3.1%) had lead migration, one of whom was 65 or older. Regression analysis revealed improvements in MPQ-sensory and MPQ-affective scores as age increased (<i>p</i> < 0.001, <i>R</i><sup>2</sup> = 0.09; <i>p</i> = 0.046, <i>R</i><sup>2</sup> = 0.05, respectively). Age did not correlate with NRS, ODI, BDI, or PCS. Diagnosis, spinal level of SCS, and lead type were not found to influence any respective outcome measure based on covariate analysis. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> This study represents the largest study where age was correlated to specific pain, depression, and disability outcomes following SCS. We provide evidence that SCS outcomes are equivalent, or better, in older patients following SCS. Based on these findings, SCS is a viable option for treatment of chronic pain in elderly patient populations.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.481

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.248 · 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