ارزيابي فرم کوتاه شده پرسشنامه درد مكگيل در زنان باردار نخستزاي مراجعه¬كننده به زايشگاه فاطميه شاهرود
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The McGill pain questionnaire (MPQ) was recognized as a valid and useful instrument for moderate to severe chronic or acute pain in all sorts of painful health problems and was translated to different languages. Although, recently the short form of McGill pain questionnaire is recommended, but translated and validated only in two languages (English And French), so this study is carried out to evaluate short form (MPQ) in primi gravid women that referred to Fatemiyeh hospital Methods and Materials: 140 nulliparuse women with single pregnancy, cephalic presentation and spontaneous labor who referred to the Fatemiye hospital, enrolled in this study. None of them received pharmacologic and any pharmacologic pain relief methods in labor unit. Pain intensity in the first and second stage of labor was determined in sequence with verbal numeric analog scale and short form McGill pain questionnaire. This questionnaire was included 11and 4 components related to sensory and affective pain rating in index (PRI), respectively.Visual analog scale (VAS) and evaluative overall intensity of total pain experience (six components) (no pain until excruciating) were filled in second stage of labor . Results: Mean intensity of pain according to short form MPQ was 35.9 (from 59 scales). No one of the sample study had throbbing pain. The most pain was related to severe pain and fearful from sensory and affective pain rating (SPR and APR) scale in 90% and 44.3% of sample study respectively. 42% of women suffered from severe and excruciating pain in second stage of delivery. Conclusion: None of the sample study suffered from thrombbing pain. Regards to the important of validation of short form (MPQ), designing research study with the large samples is recommended to confirm presence of this pain sensory component in this questionnaire .
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.063 | 0.027 |
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".