Interactions Between Pulmonary Performance and Movement-Evoked Pain in the Immediate Postsurgical Period: Implications for Perioperative Research and Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Previous data suggest that movement-evoked pain is more closely correlated with pulmonary performance than rest pain beyond 24 hours following lower abdominal surgery. Because adverse alterations in lung physiology are initiated intraoperatively and impact upon pulmonary morbidity, this study tests the hypothesis that movement-evoked pain correlates negatively with pulmonary performance in the immediate postoperative period. METHODS: We measured pain at rest and pain evoked by sitting, forced expiration, and coughing as well as peak expiratory flow (PEF), forced expiratory volume in 1 second, and forced vital capacity for the first 3 hours after laparoscopic cholecystectomy in 65 patients. RESULTS: Immediately after surgery, all pain measures were significantly correlated with PEF with a medium effect size. Also, sitting-evoked pain and cough-evoked pain were significantly more intense than rest pain. Pain intensity improved significantly over the first 3 postoperative hours. CONCLUSIONS: Considering these and previous results, pulmonary function tests such as PEF should be considered for more routine use as functional surrogates of movement-evoked pain in analgesic trials of thoracic and abdominal surgery. Mechanisms of immediate postoperative movement-evoked pain may differ from those in effect at later time points after which tissue inflammation and spinal sensitization develop. Because pain adversely impacts upon postoperative rehabilitation, these results further imply that aggressive treatment of movement-evoked pain could improve the outcome of postoperative rehabilitation measures if both are implemented very early after surgery.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".