Chronic pain and motor imagery: a rehabilitative experience in a case report.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The "neuromatrix" theory of Melzack and the studies of Decety on motor imagery have opened the way to an alternative rehabilitation method in chronic pain. AIM: To evaluate the role of motor imagery in chronic shoulder pain rehabilitation. DESIGN: Case report. SETTING: University outpatient rehabilitation. POPULATION: A 49-year-old female with chronic shoulder pain. METHODS: Neurocognitive approach, which involves the use of a new tool called "naval battle" to achieve chronic pain relief as assessed by the Visual Analogic Scale (VAS) and McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ). The Shoulder Rating Questionnaire (SRQ) and Constant Scale (CS) were used to measure functional improvement. RESULTS: The results indicate significant pain relief (71%) and improvement in functionality (50%). CONCLUSION: The results seem to confirm the accuracy of the hypothesis on the genesis of chronic pain as a perceptive "discoherency" and that motor imagery can remake a coherence of afferences at central level in chronic pain. CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT: The use of motor imagery in rehabilitation can be a viable alternative in chronic shoulder pain resistant to other rehabilitation protocols.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".