Qualitative and quantitative aspects of pain in lateral posterior thoracotomy patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Descriptive study that proposed to compare the qualitative and quantitative behavior of the pain in lateral posterior thoracotomy patients. The sample was consisted of 18 individuals with an average age of 44 years. The instruments used were physiotherapy evaluation form, numerical pain scale and McGill questionnaire for pain. The pain on the numerical pain scale was considered moderate(5) for both sexes. The descriptors of the McGill questionnaire choosen by the patients with higher frequency were: in the sensorial component, beat4, pointed1, shock2, final and pull2; in the afetive component, tired1, bored1, punishald1 and miserable1 and in the evaluative component was flat. The characteristics of pain in the sensorial group were more evidents on male group. No significant statistical difeferences were observed between quantitative answers concerning pain between the men and women. On the qualitative aspects , was observed an predominancy of the same descriptors of pain in afetive component for both sexes. Pain intensity was categorized as moderate. No significant statistical difference were observed between the pain on the post-operatory lateral posterior thoracotomy. These data demonstrate a necessity for an analysis with a larger study group.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".