Frequency Rhythmic Electrical Modulation System (FREMS) to alleviate painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy: A pilot, randomised controlled trial (The FREMSTOP study)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Frequency Rhythmic Electrical Modulated System (FREMS) is a non-invasive treatment for chronic pain conditions, but its place in the treatment algorithm for painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (PDPN) is unknown. METHODS: A pilot, open-label, randomised controlled trial in individuals with PDPN inadequately controlled on at least dual neuropathic pain treatments recruited from primary and secondary care. Participants were randomised 1:1 to FREMS + usual care (n = 13) versus usual care (n = 12). Primary outcome was change from baseline in perceived pain (assessed by visual analogue scale) at 12 weeks between treatment groups. RESULTS: Of 25 participants, 14 (56%) were men, and 21 (84%) were White Europeans. Median (IQR) age and duration of diabetes were 64 (56, 68) and 14 (10, 20) years, respectively. At 12 weeks, FREMS showed improvements in perceived pain compared with baseline, although the change was not statistically significant from control group (-4.0[-5.0,0.4] vs. 0[-0.3,0.7], p = 0.087). There were significant improvements in pain with FREMS, assessed by McGill Pain questionnaire (p = 0.042) and Douleur neuropathique-4 questionnaire (p = 0.042). More participants on FREMS had greater than 30 percent reductions in perceived pain compared with controls [7/13(54%) vs 0/12(0%), p = 0.042] and significant improvements in Patient Global Impression of Change (p = 0.005). FREMS intervention had moderate benefits in quality of life, sleep, depression and pain medication use, but these were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: FREMS might be used to treat individuals with PDPN inadequately controlled on two classes of neuropathic pain medications and is associated with improvements in pain severity and perceived impact of treatment. A larger, appropriately designed trial assessing its impact in this population is needed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".