Faculty Opinions recommendation of Intervention for phantom limb pain: A randomized single crossover study of mirror therapy.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Mirror therapy suggested to help relieve phantom limb pain (PLP) by resolving the visual- proprioceptive dissociation in the brain, but studies so far either had shorter follow-up or smaller sample size.Materials and Methods: In this randomized single crossover trial, 64 amputees with PLP in the age group of 15-75 years of age were distributed into test and control groups by simple randomization method. Of these 28 in control and 32 in test groups, respectively, completed the 4 weeks of mirror therapy and 12 weeks of follow-up assessments. A standardized set of exercises for 15 min/day for 4 and 8 weeks in test and control groups (in the first 4 weeks, the mirror was covered), respectively, was administered under supervision of one of the authors. All were assessed using the visual analog scale and Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire on day 0 and at 4, 8, and 12 weeks after therapy. In control group for the initial 4 weeks, the mirror was covered. The assessing author was blinded to the group to which the participants belonged.Results: Significant reduction in PLP was noted in the test group at 4 weeks compared to the control group (P < 0.0001). Significant reduction was seen in control group also after the switchover and sustained for 12 weeks in both. No harm was reported.Conclusion: Mirror therapy is effective in relieving the intensity, duration, frequency, and overall PLP, and improvement is maintained up to 12 weeks' posttherapy. PMID: 29497188
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.067 | 0.006 |
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".