MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150884630 · doi:10.2217/pmt.14.48

Acute Pain Service: Past, Present and Future

2014· review· en· W2150884630 on OpenAlex
Qutaiba A. Tawfic, Ali S. Faris

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePain Management · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcute painMedicinePain managementModalitiesRegimenIntensive care medicineService (business)Acute carePhysical therapyHealth careAnesthesiaSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Post surgical pain is a continuing major medical challenge despite all the advances in understanding acute pain and the development of new modalities of pain management. Since 1985 when the first acute pain service (APS) was started, many organizations initiated APS protocols and guidelines and it became mandatory to have an APS in all major acute care centers. This review focuses on the stages of development of APS and the challenges of postoperative pain management to provide optimal analgesia. Further clinical studies are required to determine best medication regimen for post-operative pain management.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.825
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it