Effects of Auricular Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation on Distal Extremity Pain:
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this pilot study was to determine the effectiveness of auricular acupuncture-like transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation on pain. Fifteen subjects (6 men, 9 women) experiencing distal extremity pain received either one placebo pill or a 10-minute treatment of acupuncture-like TENS bilaterally to five acupuncture points on the auricle Pain levels were measured before treatment and at 0, 10, and 30 minutes posttreatment using the visual analogue scale (VAS) and the pain rating index (PRI) of the McGill Pain Questionnaire. The VAS showed no statistically significant differences between Experimental Group (n = 8) and Control Group (n = 7) means at pretreatment or posttreatment; however, both groups showed a reduction in VAS means over time. The Experimental and Control Group means on the PRI were significantly different (p <.05) at all three posttreatment measurements, but not at pretreatment baseline measurement. These results suggest that auricular acupuncture-like TENS could be an alternative for relief of distal extremity pain. Additional clinical studies are necessary to validate the results of this study. [Longobardi AG, Clelland J A, Knowles CJ, et ah Effects of auricular transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation on distal extremity pain: A pilot study. Phys Ther 69:10-17, 1989]
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".