Treatment of Contained Herniated Lumbar Discs with Ozone and Corticosteroid: A Pilot Clinical Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The primary objective of this pilot study was to compare pain and function scores from patients before and after an ozone injection in combination with steroids and bupivacaine to treat herniated discs. A secondary objective was to correct some of the methodological weaknesses of some previously published ozone studies. METHODS: Fifty patients were enrolled; 1-3 mL of 2 wt% ozone in 98 wt% oxygen was delivered into the nucleus pulposus, and 7-9 mL into the adjacent paravertebral tissues. The oxygen/ozone treatment was followed by a periganglionic injection of corticosteroid and bupivacaine. All patients were evaluated 1 month after the treatment to quantify improvement in pain and function, and to monitor for potential adverse events. RESULTS: Forty-four patients had intradiscal injections and were included in the analysis. After 1 treatment, 75.0% showed significant improvement in pain based on the visual analog scale (improvement >1.8), 72.7% showed significant improvement in function based on the Oswestry disability index (improvement >15%), and 79.5% showed improvement based on the modified MacNab criteria. There were no adverse events associated with the treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Patients showed significant improvement in pain and function after receiving ozone injections in combination with steroids and bupivacaine for the treatment of herniated discs. Because of the lack of a control group and short follow-up times, conclusions about the safety and efficacy of ozone injections for the treatment of herniated discs are not warranted. However, the results provide sufficient evidence that the risk and expense of an additional randomized controlled study is merited.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".