MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293257672 · doi:10.1002/9781119757306.ch53

Complications of Peripheral and Field Stimulation

2022· other· en· W4293257672 on OpenAlexaff
Priodarshi Roychoudhury, Peter S. Staats

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Management and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePeripheral nerve stimulationSpinal cord stimulationStimulationPeripheralSurgeryPeripheral nerveImplantPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter reviews complications observed in patients treated with peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) techniques. PNS delivers focused stimulation to the target nerve that innervates the painful region. The electrode technology available for PNS requiring placement of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) electrodes connected had historically been limited to adaptation of SCS devices due to the market dominance of SCS. More recently, with the advent of ultrasound guidance, the use of PNS has dramatically expanded. Using image guidance allows the surgeon or operator to percutaneously place an electrode array close to the nerve without direct open visualization. This has limited the complications more frequently associated with open surgery. Complications associated with PNS can be classified as hardware-related complications, biological complications and programming or therapy-related complications. Sustained pain relief from a temporary system without a permanent implant will enable the further adoption of PNS earlier in the treatment continuum avoiding expensive invasive neurodestructive procedures.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPain Management and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207