Angst vor der gastrointestinalen Endoskopie - ein bedeutsames Problem?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
98 consecutive patients (40 men, 58 women; mean age 49 [17-83] years) who had been referred for outpatient gastroscopy or colonoscopy were questioned beforehand regarding their anxiety about the procedure, its causes and how it could be dispelled. Two thirds of them (67%) stated that they felt anxiety about the investigation; almost half of them (46%) felt very great or "terrible" anxiety. 55% of the patients had been fully informed about the nature of the procedure. 69% of the women and 48% of the men had previously experienced gastroscopy or colonoscopy. The reasons for their anxiety were varied. One quarter of those questioned (24%) had had unpleasant experiences during previous endoscopies; others had been alarmed by rumours about endoscopy (22%), and some were less worried about the procedure itself than about what it might reveal (24%). Almost two thirds (63%) wanted a tranquilizing injection. Other methods for dispelling anxiety, such as detailed information about the procedure (21%), a calm, relaxed atmosphere (19%) or the presence of a relative at the endoscopy (7%) were claimed for in a limited way. However, 37% very much wanted to watch the endoscopy on the television monitor. The findings show that the number of patients who experience anxiety before undergoing endoscopy is alarmingly great, and that more energetic measures are necessary to relieve their fears and worries.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".