Inadequate pain relief in ambulatory patients with human immunodeficiency virus disease in Port Harcourt
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To estimate the prevalence of pain in ambulatory patients with human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS) in Port Harcourt and to determine the type, site, severity, and adequacy of the treatment of pain in these patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was carried out at two antiretroviral therapy centers in Port Harcourt, Nigeria. A data sheet, the brief pain inventory, and the short form of the McGill pain questionnaire were used and 157 patients in various stages of HIV/AIDS participated in the study. RESULTS: About 83.7% (129/157) of the ambulatory patients with HIV/AIDS complained of pains. Of the patients who reported pain 61.24% (79/129) reported nociceptive pain while 38.76% (50/129) reported neuropathic pain. Chest pain was the most frequent site of pain followed by headache. About 82% (106/129) of those who complained of pain received some form of analgesic, but only 23.58% (25/106) of these obtained adequate pain relief. The majority of the participants had significant impairment of their quality of life due to the severity of their pain. CONCLUSION: Pain associated with significant impairment of quality of life is common in ambulatory patients with HIV/AIDS in Port Harcourt. Whereas the majority of the patients used various pain relief methods, analgesia was inadequate.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".