Pulsed Radiofrequency Ablation for Refractory Cancer-Related Leg Pain: A Case Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Metastatic cancers often lead to distant metastasis, accompanied by debilitating symptoms such as chronic pain, which can be refractory to conventional analgesic modalities. Pulsed radiofrequency ablation (Pulsed RFA) has emerged as a promising intervention for neuropathic pain syndromes, offering long-lasting relief with minimal tissue damage. We present a case of a 36-year-old male with metastatic gastric adenocarcinoma and refractory leg pain due to femoral nerve involvement. Despite aggressive multimodal analgesia, the patient experienced persistent pain, necessitating alternative interventions. Pulsed RFA targeting the right L2-L4 dorsal root ganglia (DRG) provided significant and sustained pain relief, allowing improved functional status and reduced opioid requirements. This case underscores the potential of pulsed RFA as an effective intervention for refractory cancer-related pain, enhancing patients' comfort and quality of life. Further research is warranted to establish its long-term efficacy and safety.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".