MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416452509 · doi:10.1080/17581869.2025.2591591

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for upper limb neuropathic pain in Guillain-Barré syndrome: a case report

2025· article· en· W4416452509 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ruoxi Cao, Charlene Chin Synn Zhi, Tan Pei Ling

Bibliographic record

VenuePain Management · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Management and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuropathic painTranscutaneous electrical nerve stimulationAdverse effectRefractory (planetary science)ComplicationHyperalgesiaIntractable painDistress

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neuropathic pain is a common but often under-recognized and undertreated complication of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), with the potential to significantly hinder rehabilitation. We describe the case of a young man with GBS who developed severe upper limb pain, allodynia, and hyperalgesia that were refractory to intravenous immunoglobulin and pharmacologic treatment. The pain caused significant distress and limited therapy participation. A structured trial of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) was introduced as part of a multimodal rehabilitation program, alongside pharmacological analgesia and routine physical therapy - initially administered during a six-week inpatient stay, then independently at home for another six weeks. High-frequency TENS was applied over the contralateral left paraspinal region at C6-T1, targeting the right upper limb. By weeks two and six, the patient demonstrated clinically meaningful pain relief (revised Short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire), decreased reliance on analgesics, and improved functional independence (motor Functional Independence Measure). Further gains were observed at 12-week follow-up. TENS was well tolerated with no reported adverse effects. This case highlights the potential role of TENS as a safe, noninvasive adjunct for managing GBS-related neuropathic pain and supporting functional recovery. It may also promote long-term self-management beyond the inpatient setting.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0070.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePain ManagementSame topicPain Management and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207