Development and Validation of a Graded Motor Imagery Intervention for Phantom Limb Pain in Patients with Amputations (GraMI Protocol): A Delphi Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Phantom limb pain can be defined as discomfort or pain in a missing part of the limb. The aims of this study were to develop and validate, through a Delphi methodology, a graded motor imagery protocol in order to reduce phantom limb pain. METHOD: Physiotherapists and/or occupational therapists with experience in research and a minimum clinical experience of five years in the field of neurorehabilitation and/or pain were recruited by part of a group of experts to assess the intervention. The study was conducted through an online questionnaire, where experts assessed each aspect of the intervention through a Likert scale. As many rounds as necessary were carried out until consensus was reached among experts. RESULTS: A total of two rounds were required to fully validate the intervention. During the second round, the relative interquartile range of all aspects to be assessed was less than 15%, thus showing a consensus among experts and with good concordance (Kappa index of 0.76). CONCLUSION: Experts validated a graded motor imagery intervention of phantom limb pain in patients with amputations (GraMi protocol). This intervention can help to homogenize the use of graded motor imagery in future studies and in clinical practice.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".