Transcranial direct current stimulation and physiotherapy in the treatment of fibromyalgia: case series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
"Because of the multifaceted character of fibromyalgia, new treatments have been proposed to control the symptoms. Among them, transcranial direct current stimulation(tDCS) stands out. The objective of this work was to analyze the effectiveness of transcranial direct current stimulation associated with physical therapy regarding the pain and quality of life of patients with fibromyalgia. A prospective case series study was carried out with a sample of 4 female patients. Information regarding age, marital status, education, and occupation were collected, and the Visual Analog Scale for pain, McGill Pain Questionnaire and Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire were applied. Anodal stimulation was performed on the left primary motor cortex with an intensity of 2.0mA for 20 minutes daily for 2 consecutive weeks. After the neurostimulation session, the patients were subjected to physical therapy treatment for 30 minutes. The results demonstrated that the patients had a reduction in the scores of all the employed instruments after treatment. There was a positive correlation between quality of life and pain. These findings demonstrate that tDCS in conjunction with physical therapy is an option for reducing the algesic status and improving the quality of life of patients with fibromyalgia."
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".