The Long- Term Safety and Efficacy of Intrathecal Therapy Using Sufentanil in Chronic Intractable Non-Malignant Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report describes the long term safety and efficacy of intrathecal therapy using Sufentanil for the management of chronic intractable neuropathic pain in 12 chronic pain patients. Standardized psychological screening was used to determine treatment suitability. Evaluation data included the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Wong-Baker Faces Scale, Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), Disability of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH), McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire, and complications (granulomas, toxicity, withdrawal, or deaths). SPSS version 18 was used for data analysis. Pre- and post- treatment BPI measures and pain scale scores showed a statistically significant difference. There were no complications directly related to drug toxicity, nor drug withdrawals, granulomas, or deaths. Intrathecal therapy with Sufentanil therapy offers a good treatment alternative for those cases that have failed both surgery and standard pain treatment. Strict patient selection based on psychological screening, control of co-morbidities, a proper pain management may contribute to successful outcome.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".