Similar prevalence but different characteristics of pain in kidney transplant recipients and chronic hemodialysis patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Masajtis‐Zagajewska A, Pietrasik P, Krawczyk J, Krakowska M, Jarzębski T, Pietrasiewicz B, Zbróg Z, Nowicki M. Similar prevalence but different characteristics of pain in kidney transplant recipients and chronic hemodialysis patients. Clin Transplant 2011: 25: E144–E151. © 2010 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Abstract: Background: Chronic pain is frequent in both hemodialysis (HD) patients and kidney transplant (KTx) recipients but its detailed characteristics have never been thoroughly investigated. Aim: To compare prevalence of pain, its locations and characteristics, and analgesics use in chronic HD and KTx patients. Methods: A cross‐sectional comparative study in 164 HD patients and 114 stable deceased donor KTx recipients. All participants completed the modified McGill Pain Questionnaire. Results: Overall, 63% of HD patients and 62% of KTx patients reported pain. Fifty‐four percent of HD patients and 67% of KTx patients indicated more than one location of pain. Severe pain was more common in HD patients, and prevalence of pain‐associated symptoms from major body systems was higher in HD patients. Pain in both groups was mostly local, paroxysmal and/or chronic. Fifteen percent of HD patients and 37% of KTx patients with chronic pain were not receiving pain relief drugs. The general feeling of illness was lower in KTx than HD patients (4.54 ± 2.1 vs. 5.6 ± 0.7; p < 0.0001); however, in the former group, it was systematically increasing with the time after transplantation. Conclusions: A successful kidney transplantation does not lead to a significant reduction in the prevalence of pain when compared to chronic HD patients. Pain relief medications are underused in KTx patients.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".