Women's Recovery from Sternotomy-Extension (WREST-E) study: examining long-term pain and discomfort following sternotomy and their predictors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine incision and breast pain and discomfort, and their predictors in women 12 months following sternotomy. DESIGN: Extension survey following participation in a clinical trial. SETTING: 10 Canadian centres. PATIENTS: Women (n = 326) who completed the Women's Recovery from Sternotomy Trial. INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain and discomfort data (numeric rating scales) collected by standardised interview at 5 days, 12 weeks and 12 months following sternotomy. RESULTS: More patients reported having incision or breast discomfort (46.6%) than pain (18.1%) at 12 months postoperatively. No symptoms at 5 days postoperatively were significantly associated with symptom presence at 12 postoperative months. However, having incision pain and discomfort as well as breast pain and discomfort at 12 postoperative weeks was associated with incision pain (odds ratio (OR) = 3.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.51 to 7.07), incision discomfort (OR = 4.87, 95% CI 3.01 to 7.88), breast pain (OR = 9.36, 95% CI 3.91 to 22.38) and breast discomfort (OR = 6.42, 95% CI 3.62 to 11.37), respectively, at 12 postoperative months. Increasing chest circumference was associated with having ongoing incision pain (OR = 1.12, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.21) and breast pain (OR = 1.10, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.22). Harvesting of bilateral internal mammary arteries (IMAs) was associated with having ongoing incision pain (OR = 4.71, 95% CI 1.54 to 14.3), while harvesting only the left IMA was associated with having ongoing breast pain (OR = 2.78, 95% CI 1.06 to 7.32) and breast discomfort (OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.02 to 3.19). CONCLUSIONS: Patients reported incision and breast pain and discomfort as long as 12 months post-sternotomy. Improved management of postoperative pain and discomfort up to at least 12 weeks following surgery may render reduced long-term pain and discomfort symptoms.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".