MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1850418141

COMPORTAMENTO DOLOROSO E ANALGESIA PÓS-OPERATÓRIA EM PACIENTES SUBMETIDOS A TORACOTOMIAS

2006· article· pt· W1850418141 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Thaíza Teixeira Xavier Nobre, Luciana Araújo dos Reis, Roberta Azoubel, Gilson de Vasconcelos Torres

Bibliographic record

VenueFiep Bulletin - online · 2006
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Management and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMcGill Pain QuestionnaireMedicineGynecologyPhysical therapyVisual analogue scale
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Resumo: Objetivou-se investigar o comportamento da dor pos-operatoria citada pelos pacientes submetidos a toracotomia, segundo o analgesico prescrito. Metodologia: estudo descritivo com delienamento trasnsversal, realizado em dois hospitais de Natal, Brasil, conveniados com o SUS. A amostra foi composta por 40 pacientes, 24 do sexo masculino e 16 do sexo feminino, com idade media de 48,9 anos. Os instrumentos utilizados foram a ficha de avaliacao fisioterapeutica, a escala numerica de dor e questionario para dor McGill. Os procedimentos foram realizados atraves da aplicacao dos instrumentos. A escla numerica era mostrada ao paciente, sendo escolhido o numero zero a dez que melhor representava  a sua dor. O McGill era era lido para o paciente que escolhia o descritor que melhor caracterizava  a sua dor naquele momento. Resultados: Observou-se uma diversificacao de prescricoes analgesicas para os pacientes submetidos a toracotomias e tanto na escala numerica quanto no McGill houve predominância de dor moderada em 40% das respostas dos pacientes. Porem a dor apresentou uma tendencia a intensa em 22,5% na escala numerica e 35% no McGill. Conclusao: Constatou-se uma deficiencia quanto ao consenso e o uso de protocolos analgesicos no pos-operatorio de toracotomias, o que mostra que a dor continua sendo subtratada.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.121
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFiep Bulletin - onlineSame topicPain Management and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207