MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407151575 · doi:10.1093/brain/awaf040

On the use of sham transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation in spinal cord injury clinical trials

2025· article· en· W4407151575 on OpenAlexafffund
John L. K. Kramer, Tania Lam, Fábio Rossi, Judy Illes

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Management and Treatment
Canadian institutionsNeuroDevNetVancouver Coastal Health Research InstituteUniversity of British ColumbiaInternational Collaboration On Repair DiscoveriesVancouver Coastal Health
FundersUniversity of British ColumbiaGovernment of Canada
KeywordsMedicineSpinal cord injuryNeuromodulationSpinal cordClinical trialSpinal cord stimulationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAnesthesiaPhysical therapyStimulationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Kramer et al. examine the reasons put forth by investigators for excluding a sham condition in trials of neuromodulation therapies for individuals with spinal cord injury. They conclude that current dogma does not justify this design, and emphasize the need for future trials to include appropriate controls.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.877
Threshold uncertainty score0.332

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.258
GPT teacher head0.482
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrainSame topicPain Management and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207