Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Preincisional analgesia is an antinociceptive treatment that prevents altered central excitability from high-intensity noxious stimuli. To determine the analgesic efficacy of preoperative infiltration with bupivacaine for reduction mammaplasty, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was designed. METHODS: Women with mammary hypertrophy were allocated randomly to one of two study groups. Patients in group I received preincision infiltration with bupivacaine into each breast after general anesthesia. Group II patients received similar injections of saline injection alone after general anesthesia. RESULTS: Visual analogue pain score, verbal pain score, and short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire scores were higher in group II patients until 22 hours after surgery (p < 0.008). Patients in the saline group had higher intravenous meperidine consumption for 22 hours postoperatively and solicited opioids before the patients in the bupivacaine group (p < 0.001). The difference between groups was statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Preincisional infiltration with bupivacaine results in reduced pain and lower postoperative opioid requirements in the early postoperative phase of pain following breast reduction. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, I.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".