Risk Factors of Significant Pain Syndrome 90 Days After Minor Thoracic Injury: Trajectory Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective was to identify the risk factors of clinically significant pain at 90 days in patients with minor thoracic injury (MTI) discharged from the emergency department (ED). METHODS: A prospective, multicenter, cohort study was conducted in four Canadian EDs from November 2006 to November 2010. All consecutive patients aged 16 years or older with MTI were eligible at discharge from EDs. They underwent standardized clinical and radiologic evaluations at 1 and 2 weeks, followed by standardized telephone interviews at 30 and 90 days. A pain trajectory model characterized groups of patients with different pain evolutions and ascertained specific risk factors in each group through multivariate analysis. RESULTS: In this cohort of 1,132 patients, 734 were eligible for study inclusion. The authors identified a pain trajectory that characterized 18.2% of the study population experiencing clinically significant pain (>3 of 10) at 90 days after a MTI. Multivariate modeling found two or more rib fractures, smoking, and initial oxygen saturation below 95% to be predictors of this group of patients. CONCLUSIONS: To the authors' knowledge, this is the first prospective study of trajectory modeling to detect risk factors associated with significant pain at 90 days after MTI. These factors may help in planning specific treatment strategies and should be validated in another prospective cohort.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".