Phantom Fighters: Coping Mechanisms of Amputee Patients with Phantom Limb Pain: A Longitudinal Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phantom Limb Pain (PLP) is a phenomenon commonly observed in orthopedic rehabilitation units that can have detrimental effects on patients’ functioning. Psychological aspects of PLP have been widely investigated showing that some coping mechanisms are advantageous at certain points but not at others. However, the mechanisms related to positive adjustment to PLP during the course of rehabilitation have not been adequately examined. The aim of the study was to investigate the relationship between PLP and coping mechanism at two points during the rehabilitation process. Thirty one orthopedic inpatients, who had undergone lower-limb amputation following diabetic complications, rated their pain levels and mental coping strategies. The Ways of Coping Checklist, Life Orientation Test, and the McGill Pain Questionnaire, 1-15 days post-surgery and six months post-surgery were used for evaluation. Denial was found to be negatively correlated with PLP shortly after amputation. In contrast, optimism was found to be negatively correlated with PLP six months after the surgery. Emotion-focused coping mechanisms were found to be positively correlated with PLP. It is concluded that denial during the early stages of recuperation and optimism at later stages of rehabilitation is associated with reduced PLP. Awareness of these mental processes by both medical staff and family members may enable acceptance of these processes and thus facilitate patients’ rehabilitation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".