P.152 Efficacy of Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation for Post Surgical Neuropathic Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The dorsal root ganglion (DRG) has been established as an important structure in the development and modulation of chonic neuropathic pain and has demonstrated superiority over spinal cord stimulation in the management of challenging neuropathic pain conditions, including complex regional pain syndrome and chronic post-spine surgery neuropathic pain. DRG has only been available in Canada for patient application since January 2020. The St Pauls Hospital Neuromodulation Program was one of the first Canadian centers to offer this procedure. Methods: We reviewed our early experience with DRG therapy in 10 patients. Patient-reported outcome measures were collected pre-trial, post-trial, and post-device implantation, to determine the efficacy of DRG. We hypothesized that DRG stimulation would demonstrate a meaningful change in PROMIS-29 domains and at least 50% improvement in pain intensity at 8 wks. Results: All patients demonstrated a > 5 point change in T scores in PROMIS-29 domains suggesting a meaningful benefit. Patients also demonstrated a percentage pain improvement at 8 wks of 64 % based on a numerical rating scale. No major complications were observed. Conclusions: DRG stimulation is a safe and effective treatment option for neuropathic pain.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.012 | 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".