Abstract No. : ABS2974: Comparative study between pulsed radiofrequency ablation and continuous radiofrequency ablation of splanchnic plexus for pain relief in patients with upper abdominal cancers - Adouble blinded randomised controlled study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Aims: The study compares the efficacy of pulsed radiofrequency ablation(RFA) versus continuous RFA in relieving pain ,improving quality of life and reducing daily morphine dosage amongst patients suffering from upper abdominal cancers. Methods: Fifty six patients presenting to the out patient department with intractable pain (visual analogue scale (VAS) score≥4) due to upper abdominal cancers despite taking oral morphine were randomly divided into two groups of 28 patients each. Patients in group 1 were given splanchnic plexus block using pulsed RFA at 42 degrees for 7 min and group 2 were given continuous RFA at 80 degrees for 90 seconds using C-arm and fluoroscopy-guided technique. The patients were followed up at 15 days, 1 month, 3 months and 6 months for the assessment of pain severity(VAS), quality of life(Edmonton Scale) and daily oral morphine dose. Results: Mean reduction in VAS Score was more for group 2 than group 1, at all follow ups and the difference was statistically significant at 1, 3 and 6 months. Mean Edmonton score and mean daily morphine dosage were significantly reduced in both groups at 15 days but the difference between 2 groups was statistically insignificant, and at subsequent follow ups these variables increased in both groups but the increase in group 1 was more than group 2 (figure 1). Conclusion: Continuous RFA provides a better pain relief than pulsed RFA but there is no significant long term improvement in the quality of life and opioid consumption of patients with these interventions.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.002 |
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.
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".