Efficacy of a novel sensory discrimination training device for the management of phantom limb pain: protocol for a randomised placebo-controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Many amputees experience phantom limb pain (PLP). Pharmacological management is the mainstay of treatment, but effectiveness is limited, and it is associated with significant side effects. Sensory discrimination training (SDT) is a non-pharmacological treatment for PLP. Previously, SDT required a clinician, or carer, to administer it, creating a barrier to real world use. In this trial, an automated SDT device (SP1X, 2pd Ltd, Middlesbrough, United Kingdom) for the self-management of PLP will be investigated for efficacy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Phantom Relief is a decentralised, randomised, placebo-controlled, mixed-methods, superiority trial. Participants will take part from their own homes, using an electronic data capture tool to complete all trial documentation. Eligible, consenting individuals with PLP (intensity rated as ≥4 on a 0-10 scale; n=100) will be randomised to receive the SP1X device (intervention group) or a placebo device SP1X7 (placebo group). The first and second treatment sessions will be observed via video call to provide set-up guidance and any additional advice needed. The primary outcome measure will be the McGill Pain Questionnaire revised (SF-MPQ-2). Outcome measures will be collected at baseline, 3 weeks (immediately post intervention) and 3 months follow-up. Statistical analysis will be carried out by a blinded statistician (analysis of covariance model conditioning on the baseline and stratification factors). Semi-structured interviews will be carried out with a sub-sample (n=10-15) of intervention group participants. Participants will be provided with their allocated device for home use. Online video calls will be used to instruct participants on how to set up and use the device by the research assistant (RA). The RA will observe the first and second treatment sessions and provide any additional advice needed. Participants in both groups will be asked to use the device for 60 min/day for at least 15 days of the 21-day treatment period and to record device use in a study diary. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approval has been obtained from Teesside University School of Health and Life Sciences Research and Ethics Committee, the North of Scotland Research Ethics Service, Health Research Authority, and a letter of no objection was obtained from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Authority. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed articles, conference presentations and a doctoral thesis. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04103983.
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 | 0.038 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.091 | 0.018 |
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".