MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225417598 · doi:10.3389/fphar.2022.878371

Tibetan Herbal Pain-Relieving Plaster for Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain Among Cancer Survivors: Study Protocol of a Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial

2022· article· en· W4225417598 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mingxiao Yang, Raymond E. Baser, Susan Q. Li, Yen-Nien Hou, Kamyar Chong, Yi Lily Zhang, Irfan Hoque, Ting Bao, Jun J. Mao

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Pharmacology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthMemorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
KeywordsMedicineCancer painRandomized controlled trialPlaceboBrief Pain InventoryClinical trialPhysical therapyChronic painAdverse effectRandomizationMcGill Pain QuestionnaireCancerAlternative medicineSurgeryInternal medicineVisual analogue scale

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chronic pain is common and debilitating in cancer survivors. Tibetan herbal pain-relieving plaster is used as an external analgesic to treat musculoskeletal pain in China; however, its safety and efficacy have not been evaluated via clinical trials in cancer survivors. We designed this Phase II randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04916249) to assess the efficacy and safety of the pain-relieving plaster for temporary pain relief among cancer survivors with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Under ethical approval from the Institutional Review Board at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, we will enroll eligible cancer survivors who have a clinical diagnosis of moderate to severe chronic musculoskeletal pain in this study. We use a central randomization system to allocate the eligible participants to either the treatment or the control group in a 1:1 ratio, with stratification by baseline opioid use. We will instruct the participants to apply the herbal patch (Tibetree Pain-Relieving Plaster, Tibet Cheezheng Tibetan Medicine Co. Ltd., Tibet, China) or placebo patch daily at the focal area with worst pain for 14 consecutive days. Study physician, participant, outcome assessor, and biostatistician are blinded to the group allocation. The primary outcome is pain severity measured by the Brief Pain Inventory on Days 2-7. Secondary outcomes include changes in insomnia, anxiety, depression, fatigue, pressure pain threshold, pain medication use, and global impression of change. We will also monitor the adverse events throughout the study period. Statistical analysis will follow the intention-to-treat principle and linear mixed modeling will be used. With rigorous design and implementation, this randomized, placebo-controlled trial will provide the initial evidence on the efficacy and safety of the pain-relieving plaster for pain relief among cancer survivors with chronic musculoskeletal 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.224

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0070.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.005
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0080.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0670.013

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.335 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PharmacologySame topicPain Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207