MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416769500 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2025-101647

Evaluating pain and neurological function with high frequency 10 kHz spinal cord stimulation in the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy: design of a multicentre, randomised controlled trial (PDN-Sensory)

2025· article· en· W4416769500 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rodica Pop‐Busui, Erika Petersen, Brian Levy, Solomon Tesfaye, David Armstrong, George Grunberger, Andrew J.M. Boulton, Manish Bharara, Deborah Edgar, Rose Province‐Azalde, David Caraway

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Management and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNevro
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialSpinal cord stimulationNeurologySpinal cordNeuromodulationPain medicineClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Current pharmacological treatment options for painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN) often fail to provide adequate pain relief. However, in the recent SENZA-PDN study, high-frequency 10 kHz spinal cord stimulation (SCS) demonstrated significant long-term improvements in lower limb pain and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in a PDN population. Furthermore, more than half of 10 kHz SCS recipients showed improved sensory function based on non-blinded clinical assessments in post hoc analysis. We report the design of the PDN-Sensory study, which aims to evaluate changes in pain and neurological function with 10 kHz SCS in the treatment of PDN. The study will include objective measures of neurological function, including the modified Toronto Clinical Neuropathy Score (mTCNS) and intraepidermal nerve fibre density (IENFD). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This multicentre, prospective, randomised controlled trial will compare conventional medical management (CMM) with 10 kHz SCS+CMM in individuals with diabetes and chronic, intractable lower limb pain due to PDN. Participants will be randomised 1:1 to CMM alone or 10 kHz SCS+CMM, with optional crossover at 6 months. The primary outcome is the proportion of participants at 6 months achieving ≥50% pain relief from baseline. The key secondary endpoint is the proportion of participants at 6 months with a reduction in mTCNS of ≥3 points from baseline (excluding changes in foot pain). Additional endpoints at 6 and 12 months include changes from baseline in mTCNS, IENFD, 7-day averaged pain score, pain-related interference, HRQoL, sleep, psychological outcomes, functional status and metabolic parameters. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol received central approval from the Western Institutional Review Board (IRB #20230954). Local IRB approval will be required before initiation of the study at each participating clinical site. The study complies with Good Clinical Practice guidelines (ISO 14155), the Declaration of Helsinki, and all applicable national, federal and local regulatory requirements. Dissemination plans include presentations at national and international conferences and publication in a peer-reviewed journal with open access. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05777317.

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.124

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.005
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0060.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.114
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicPain Management and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207