Faculty Opinions recommendation of A comparison of the effects of mirror therapy and phantom exercises on phantom limb pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/aim: Although mirror therapy (MT) and phantom exercises (PE) have been shown to reduce pain, the efficacy of these methods in terms of pain, quality of life (QoL), and psychological status (PS) has not been investigated and compared to date. The aim of this study was to determine whether there is any difference between MT and PE in the treatment of phantom limb pain (PLP).Materials and methods: Forty unilateral transtibial amputees (aged 18–45 years) participated in this study. The subjects were randomly divided into ‘MT group’ and ‘PE group’. QoL was assessed using Short-Form 36 (SF-36), psychological status using the Beck depression inventory (BDI), and pain intensity using a visual analog scale (VAS), before and at the end of the program, and on the 3rd and 6th months thereafter.Results: All assessments for all parameters improved significantly in both groups (P < 0.05). Comparison of the two groups revealed a significant difference in changes for VAS and BDI in all measurements, and in pre- and posttreatment scores for all SF-36 parameters (except for Role-Emotional) in favor of the MT group (P < 0.05).Conclusion: While pain intensity decreased and QoL and PS improved in both the MT and PE groups, these improvements were greater in the MT group. PMID: 30762318
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 | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.490 | 0.184 |
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".