Table_1_A novel form of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for the reduction of dysesthesias caused by spinal nerve dysfunction: A case series.docx
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Current therapeutic interventions for dysesthesias caused by spinal cord dysfunctions are ineffective. We propose a novel intervention using transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for dysesthesias, and we present an in-depth case series. Patients and methods Conventional high-frequency TENS and the novel dysesthesia-matched TENS (DM-TENS) were applied to 16 hands of nine patients with spinal cord dysfunction. The dysesthesia-matched TENS’ stimulus intensity and frequency matched the intensity and somatosensory profile of the patients’ dysesthesias. The Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire version-2 (SF-MPQ2) and quantitative sensory testing (QST) were applied during electrical stimulation/no stimulation. We determined intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) to evaluate the reliability of the setting and the effects on the dysesthesias and the change in subjective dysesthesia between each patient’s baseline without TENS and DM-TENS. Results We were able to apply electrical stimulation matching the patients’ subjective dysesthesia for 14 hands (eight patients). TENS could not be applied for the remaining patient due to severe sensory deficits. Compared to the patients’ baseline and high-frequency TENS, the DM-TENS provided significant decreases in tingling/pins-and-needles and numbness on the SF-MPQ2, and it significantly improved the dynamic and static mechanical detection on QST. Regarding the reliability of the dysesthesia-matched TENS settings, the ICCs (1,5) were intensity, 0.95; frequency, 1.00; and effect on dysesthesia, 0.98. Conclusion DM-TENS improved the dysesthesias and mechanical hypoesthesia caused by spinal cord dysfunction. The effectiveness of DM-TENS particularly for tingling and numbness was clearly higher and was reliable within the patients. These results may suggest an effective treatment of dysesthesias in patients with spinal cord dysfunction. Clinical trial registration [https://rctportal.niph.go.jp/s/detail/um?trial_id=UMIN000045332], identifier [UMIN000045332].
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.176 | 0.020 |
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".