P.153 Profiles and Outcomes of Workers’ Compensation Patients Undergoing Spinal Cord Stimulation for Persistent Post Surgical Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The challenges of chronic pain management, and resulting poorer outcomes, in workers’ compensation (WCB) patients has been well established. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been used for the management of low back and radicular neuropathic pain with varying effectiveness and it’s efficacy in the WCB population has been challenged. We sought to examine our experience using SCS in WCB compared to non WCB patients. Methods: A retrospective analysis of 71 WCB patients assessed and treated at the St Pauls Hospital neuromodulation program between 2016-2021 was performed. This group was compared to a cohort on non WCB patients in terms of the likelhood of being offered a trial, proceeding with trial if offered, and the likelhood of a successful trial proceeding to implant. Results: Compared to non WCB, the WCB patients were more likely to be offered a trial (86% vs 77%) and more likely to proceed with a trial if offered (82% vs 71%). Trial to implant ratios were similar in both WCB and non WCB patients (78% vs 77%). Conclusions: WCB patients were more likely to be offered a SCS trial and more likely to accept if offered, compared to non-WCB patients. However, both groups were similar in trial to implant probability.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".