MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W195576986

Pain in chronic pancreatitis: assessment and relief through treatment.

2004· article· en· W195576986 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Andrada Seicean, Mircea Grigorescu, Marcel Tanțău, Dan L. Dumitraşcu, Diana Pop, Teodora Mocan

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPancreatitis Pathology and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePancreatitisPain reliefMultivariate analysisChronic painUnivariate analysisPain scoreInternal medicinePhysical therapySurgery
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: To assess two scores of pain used in chronic pancreatitis, to analyse the morphological factors identified by imaging techniques and the extrinsic factors involved in causing pain and in pain evolution during treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Pain was assessed by means of a unidimensional numeric scale and a multidimensional Mc Gill score in 50 patients with chronic pancreatitis. We prospectively followed up 28 patients over a period of 17 months. RESULTS: Pain assessment by means of the two scores was statistically comparable. The multidimensional score correlated with the presence of Wirsung stenoses in the univariate analysis and with Wirsung stenoses and their diameter in the multivariate one. The smokers had a smaller rate of pain relief during the treatment. In cases with more morphological changes of severe chronic pancreatitis, pain relief was lower than in cases with fewer changes. CONCLUSIONS: The McGill score is more appropriate for the quantitative assessment of pain. Smoking reduces the chances of pain relief under treatment. Duct stenoses and Wirsung diameter have the best correlation with pain intensity. The severe chronic pancreatitis changes are negative predictive factors for pain relief under treatment

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.287
Threshold uncertainty score0.561

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.262 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations9
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicPancreatitis Pathology and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207