INT195442

From wiki-pain
Jump to: navigation, search
Context Info
Confidence 0.65
First Reported 2006
Last Reported 2009
Negated 1
Speculated 0
Reported most in Body
Documents 23
Total Number 23
Disease Relevance 5.13
Pain Relevance 6.92

This is a graph with borders and nodes. Maybe there is an Imagemap used so the nodes may be linking to some Pages.

pigmentation (FIG4) cell death (FIG4) Golgi apparatus (FIG4)
endoplasmic reticulum (FIG4)
Anatomy Link Frequency
plasma 1
nerve 1
tendon 1
FIG4 (Homo sapiens)
Pain Link Frequency Relevance Heat
Transcranial magnetic stimulation 2790 100.00 Very High Very High Very High
depression 36 94.96 High High
ischemia 21 86.48 High High
Pain 273 81.88 Quite High
visual analogue scale 18 76.36 Quite High
metalloproteinase 2 50.00 Quite Low
cva 4 18.36 Low Low
aspirin 1 13.88 Low Low
cerebral cortex 18 5.00 Very Low Very Low Very Low
Inflammation 10 5.00 Very Low Very Low Very Low
Disease Link Frequency Relevance Heat
Injury 319 98.08 Very High Very High Very High
Nervous System Injury 12 97.80 Very High Very High Very High
Cognitive Disorder 72 95.96 Very High Very High Very High
Burns 12 95.52 Very High Very High Very High
Depression 36 94.96 High High
Cv General 2 Under Development 46 94.76 High High
Cv General 4 Under Development 5 87.20 High High
Pain 237 81.88 Quite High
Sprains And Strains 8 65.44 Quite High
Dislocations 8 65.04 Quite High

Sentences Mentioned In

Key: Protein Mutation Event Anatomy Negation Speculation Pain term Disease term
The results presented in Fig 4 reveal what happens when we simulate a situation in which HBOT is halted prematurely (after 5 days).
Gene_expression (presented) of Fig 4
1) Confidence 0.65 Published 2009 Journal PLoS Computational Biology Section Body Doc Link PMC2710516 Disease Relevance 0.53 Pain Relevance 0
The median cost for a tendon/nerve injury or a wound caused by a sharp object (N = 55) was higher than for many other cases, but few cases were really expensive (Fig 3).
Gene_expression (expensive) of Fig 3 in nerve associated with nervous system injury and injury
2) Confidence 0.51 Published 2008 Journal BMC Pediatr Section Body Doc Link PMC2478675 Disease Relevance 1.51 Pain Relevance 0
Motor threshold was obtained for Standard, Reversed and Sham TMS using the Fig8 and Circ coils on three naïve subjects.
Gene_expression (coils) of Fig8 associated with transcranial magnetic stimulation
3) Confidence 0.29 Published 2008 Journal PLoS ONE Section Body Doc Link PMC2271126 Disease Relevance 0.11 Pain Relevance 0.35
104.2, p<0.001; Fig8-Sham: F(2, 57)?
Gene_expression (p<0.001) of Fig8-Sham
4) Confidence 0.29 Published 2008 Journal PLoS ONE Section Body Doc Link PMC2271126 Disease Relevance 0 Pain Relevance 0.34
There were no significant differences between EMF of single-pulse Sham TMS and the 2nd pulse Sham TMS (Fig8: t(38)?
Gene_expression (2nd) of Fig8 associated with transcranial magnetic stimulation
5) Confidence 0.29 Published 2008 Journal PLoS ONE Section Body Doc Link PMC2271126 Disease Relevance 0 Pain Relevance 0.34
When two consecutive Standard (or Reversed) TMS were delivered using custom-made coils, both Fig8 and Circ coils also showed no significant differences in EMF (Fig8: t(38)?
Gene_expression (coils) of Fig8 associated with transcranial magnetic stimulation
6) Confidence 0.29 Published 2008 Journal PLoS ONE Section Body Doc Link PMC2271126 Disease Relevance 0 Pain Relevance 0.31
Comparing Standard and Reversed TMS (Fig. 3), the motor threshold was higher for Reversed TMS (Fig8 coil: mean difference?
Gene_expression (coil) of Fig8 associated with transcranial magnetic stimulation
7) Confidence 0.29 Published 2008 Journal PLoS ONE Section Body Doc Link PMC2271126 Disease Relevance 0 Pain Relevance 0.42
None of the subjects were able to tell that there were different types of TMS intermixed using the Fig8 coil.
Gene_expression (using) of Fig8 associated with transcranial magnetic stimulation
8) Confidence 0.29 Published 2008 Journal PLoS ONE Section Body Doc Link PMC2271126 Disease Relevance 0 Pain Relevance 0.43
First, naïve subjects received 12 pulses of Standard, Reversed and Sham TMS at 90% maximum output and were asked at the end whether there were different kinds of TMS pulses using the Fig8 coil.
Gene_expression (using) of Fig8 associated with transcranial magnetic stimulation
9) Confidence 0.29 Published 2008 Journal PLoS ONE Section Body Doc Link PMC2271126 Disease Relevance 0 Pain Relevance 0.44
10.1, p<0.001; Fig8-Sham: F(2,57)?
Gene_expression (p<0.001) of Fig8-Sham
10) Confidence 0.29 Published 2008 Journal PLoS ONE Section Body Doc Link PMC2271126 Disease Relevance 0 Pain Relevance 0.35
There were no significant differences between EMF of single-pulse Sham TMS and the 2nd pulse Sham TMS (Fig8: t(38)?
Gene_expression (pulse) of Fig8 associated with transcranial magnetic stimulation
11) Confidence 0.29 Published 2008 Journal PLoS ONE Section Body Doc Link PMC2271126 Disease Relevance 0 Pain Relevance 0.34
When we examined EMF induced by commercially available Fig8 and Circ coils, we found no effect of the 1st pulse on the 2nd pulse, i.e., there were no significant differences between the 1st and 2nd EMF (Fig8: t(38)?
Gene_expression (coils) of Fig8
12) Confidence 0.29 Published 2008 Journal PLoS ONE Section Body Doc Link PMC2271126 Disease Relevance 0 Pain Relevance 0.21
104.2, p<0.001; Fig8-Sham: F(2, 57)?
Gene_expression (104.2) of Fig8-Sham
13) Confidence 0.29 Published 2008 Journal PLoS ONE Section Body Doc Link PMC2271126 Disease Relevance 0 Pain Relevance 0.34
For both the Fig8 and Circ coils, EMF amplitude measures using one-way repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed significant main effects of distance (10 30, 50 mm) for all TMS type (Standard/Reversed, Sham) and coils (Fig8, Circ) (Fig8-Standard/Reversed: F(2, 57)?
Gene_expression (using) of Fig8 associated with transcranial magnetic stimulation
14) Confidence 0.29 Published 2008 Journal PLoS ONE Section Body Doc Link PMC2271126 Disease Relevance 0 Pain Relevance 0.34
For both the Fig8 and Circ coils, using one-way repeated measures ANOVA, EMF amplitude showed significant main effects of intensity (10, 30, 50%) for all TMS type (Standard/Reversed, Sham) and coils (Fig8, Circ) except for Sham TMS using the Fir8 coil (Fig8-Standard/Reversed: F(2,57)?
Neg (except) Gene_expression (using) of Fig8 associated with transcranial magnetic stimulation
15) Confidence 0.29 Published 2008 Journal PLoS ONE Section Body Doc Link PMC2271126 Disease Relevance 0 Pain Relevance 0.35
For both the Fig8 and Circ coils, EMF amplitude measures using one-way repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed significant main effects of distance (10 30, 50 mm) for all TMS type (Standard/Reversed, Sham) and coils (Fig8, Circ) (Fig8-Standard/Reversed: F(2, 57)?
Gene_expression (using) of Fig8 associated with transcranial magnetic stimulation
16) Confidence 0.29 Published 2008 Journal PLoS ONE Section Body Doc Link PMC2271126 Disease Relevance 0 Pain Relevance 0.37
First, naïve subjects received 12 pulses of Standard, Reversed and Sham TMS and were then asked whether they had noticed different kinds of TMS pulses using the Fig8 coil.
Gene_expression (using) of Fig8 associated with transcranial magnetic stimulation
17) Confidence 0.29 Published 2008 Journal PLoS ONE Section Body Doc Link PMC2271126 Disease Relevance 0 Pain Relevance 0.45
For both the Fig8 and Circ coils, using one-way repeated measures ANOVA, EMF amplitude showed significant main effects of intensity (10, 30, 50%) for all TMS type (Standard/Reversed, Sham) and coils (Fig8, Circ) except for Sham TMS using the Fir8 coil (Fig8-Standard/Reversed: F(2,57)?
Gene_expression (coils) of Fig8 associated with transcranial magnetic stimulation
18) Confidence 0.29 Published 2008 Journal PLoS ONE Section Body Doc Link PMC2271126 Disease Relevance 0 Pain Relevance 0.32
Ten trials per condition (Standard, Reversed, Sham) were randomly intermixed, using either the Fig8 or Circ coil.
Gene_expression (using) of Fig8
19) Confidence 0.29 Published 2008 Journal PLoS ONE Section Body Doc Link PMC2271126 Disease Relevance 0.57 Pain Relevance 0.80
10.1, p<0.001; Fig8-Sham: F(2,57)?
Gene_expression (10.1) of Fig8-Sham
20) Confidence 0.29 Published 2008 Journal PLoS ONE Section Body Doc Link PMC2271126 Disease Relevance 0 Pain Relevance 0.35

General Comments

This test has worked.

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox