Comments on: Ultrasound-guided genicular nerve radiofrequency treatment: prospective randomized comparative trial of a 3-nerve protocol versus a 5-nerve protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Journal Article Corrected proof Comments on: Ultrasound-guided genicular nerve radiofrequency treatment: prospective randomized comparative trial of a 3-nerve protocol versus a 5-nerve protocol Get access Mauricio Forero, MD, Fellow of Interventional Pain Practice (FIPP), Mauricio Forero, MD, Fellow of Interventional Pain Practice (FIPP) Department of Anesthesiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8N 3Z5, Canada Corresponding author: Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, McMaster University, 50 Charlton Avenue East, Hamilton, ON L8N 4A6, Canada. Email: Foreroc@mcmaster.ca Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic PubMed Google Scholar Laura J Olejnik, MD Laura J Olejnik, MD Department of Emergency Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8N 3Z5, Canada https://orcid.org/0009-0002-6343-5565 Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic PubMed Google Scholar Pain Medicine, pnad157, https://doi.org/10.1093/pm/pnad157 Published: 04 January 2024 Article history Received: 08 November 2023 Accepted: 30 November 2023 Published: 04 January 2024 Corrected and typeset: 12 January 2024
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".