Evaluation of Pain Measurement Practices and Opinions of Peripheral Nerve Surgeons
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the opinions and practices of peripheral nerve surgeons regarding assessment and treatment of pain in patients following nerve injury. Surgeons with expertise in upper extremity peripheral nerve injuries and members of an international peripheral nerve society were sent an introductory letter and electronic survey by email ( n=133). Seventy members responded to the survey (49%) and 59 surgeons completed the survey (44%). For patients referred for motor or sensory dysfunction, 31 surgeons (52%) indicated that they always formally assess pain. In patients referred for pain, 44 surgeons (75%) quantitatively assess pain using a verbal scale ( n=24) or verbal numeric scale ( n=36). The most frequent factors considered very important in the development of chronic neuropathic pain were psychosocial factors (64%), mechanism of injury (59%), workers' compensation or litigation (54%), and iatrogenic injury (48%). In patients more than 6 months following injury, surgeons frequently see: cold sensitivity (54%), decreased motor function (42%), paraesthesia or numbness (41%), fear of returning to work (22%), neuropathic pain (20%), and emotional or psychological distress (17%). Only 52% of surgeons who responded to the survey always evaluate pain in patients referred for motor or sensory dysfunction. Pain assessment most frequently includes verbal patient response, and assessment of psychosocial factors is rarely included. Predominately, patient-related factors were considered important in the development of chronic neuropathic pain.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it