4 themes described the experiences of patients before, during, and immediately after awake craniotomyCommentary
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A Palese Prof A Palese, Udine University, Udine, Italy; alvisa.palese@uniud.it How do patients describe their experiences before, during, and immediately after awake craniotomy? Qualitative study using a phenomenological approach. Neurosurgical unit in a hospital in Udine, Italy. Purposeful sample of 21 patients >18 years of age (age range 20–63 y, 52% women) who had a brain neoplasm, no language or cognitive disabilities, and were to have surgery under local anaesthesia. Patients participated in 2 individual interviews (1 on the day before and 1 on the day after surgery), each lasting 30–60 minutes. Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed. Data were analysed thematically. 4 themes described patients’ experiences of awake craniotomy. (1) Patients focused on self-preservation before surgery. They felt that having surgery under local anaesthesia was almost non-negotiable because they believed it would reduce collateral damage and prevent disabilities. However, they also felt they had an active role in decisions: “It is my role during the operation to help the neurosurgeon understand where it is dangerous to touch and where he should be operating.” Most patients were more afraid of …
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".