Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation on ischemic rest pain in inpatients: randomised trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy of a short-term application of Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation to relieve rest pain in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia. METHODS: In patients ³18 years old, with chronic limb-threatening ischemia and rest pain ³3 in the Visual Analogue Scale, without diabetic neuropathy were randomly assigned to 1) Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation (100 Hz, 200 μs) or 2) sham intervention, both during one or two 20 min treatment sessions. The primary outcome was pain intensity, assessed by the visual analogue scale (0-10 cm) and described by the McGill Pain Questionnaire. We used a t-test for difference of means. RESULTS: A total of 169 patients were assessed, 23 met the study criteria and were randomized. Thirty-four applications were performed in two days: in the 17 Transcutaneous Nerve Stimulation and 17 sham. The within-group analysis indicated a pain decrease in both groups (Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation, from 7-3.9 cm, p<0.0001, and sham from 5.8-3.2 cm, p<0.0001). No statistically significant difference was verified between-groups (p=0.5). CONCLUSIONS: Both groups showed a decrease in rest pain of 54 and 55%, respectively. However, there was no difference between short-term high-frequency Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation and sham intervention to relieve ischemic rest pain in chronic limb-threatening ischemia patients.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".