Faculty Opinions recommendation of A randomized, controlled trial of mirror therapy for upper extremity phantom limb pain in male amputees.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Phantom limb pain (PLP) is prevalent in patients post-amputation and is difficult to treat.We assessed the efficacy of mirror therapy in relieving PLP in unilateral, upper extremity male amputees.Methods: Fifteen participants from Walter Reed and Brooke Army Medical Centers were randomly assigned to one of two groups: mirror therapy (n = 9) or control (n = 6, covered mirror or mental visualization therapy).Participants were asked to perform 15 min of their assigned therapy daily for 5 days/week for 4 weeks.The primary outcome was pain as measured using a 100-mm Visual Analog Scale.results: Subjects in the mirror therapy group had a significant decrease in pain scores, from a mean of 44.1 (SD = 17.0) to 27.5 (SD = 17.2) mm (p = 0.002).In addition, there was a significant decrease in daily time experiencing pain, from a mean of 1,022 (SD = 673) to 448 (SD = 565) minutes (p = 0.003).By contrast, the control group had neither diminished pain (p = 0.65) nor decreased overall time experiencing pain (p = 0.49).A pain decrement response seen by the 10th treatment session was predictive of final efficacy.Conclusion: These results confirm that mirror therapy is an effective therapy for PLP in unilateral, upper extremity male amputees, reducing both severity and duration of daily episodes.
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 | 0.010 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.220 | 0.020 |
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".