Chronic Persistent Pain After Severe Burns: A Survey of 358 Burn Survivors
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence, characteristics, and effects of chronic persistent pain on burn survivors. DESIGN: Mail survey. SETTING: Respondents' homes. PATIENTS: All members of the Phoenix Society for Burn Survivors. INTERVENTIONS: None. OUTCOME MEASURES: Twenty-three questions on the prevalence of pain and its characteristics, including the short form of the McGill-Melzack Pain Questionnaire. RESULTS: Of 1,500 members who received the survey, 358 (24%) responded. Respondents had burns covering an average of 59% of their bodies. Time between the injury and the survey averaged 12 years. On the survey, 52% of respondents reported ongoing burn-related pain, and 46% were able to characterize their pain with one or more of 15 characteristics. Two-thirds (66%) reported that pain interfered with their rehabilitation, and 55% reported that pain interfered with their daily lives. Asked "what makes the pain worse now?," the most frequent reply (15%) was "the weather" (including "hot" or "cold"). Various physical activities (e.g., walking, bicycling) were also mentioned, along with nerve regrowth, contractures, remembering the accident, and depression. "Things that make your pain better now" included "nothing," a variety of over-the-counter analgesics, "rest,""exercise,""yoga,""acupuncture,""family and friends," and "God." In coping with their pain, most respondents found family the most helpful, although nurse(s) received almost as high a rating. CONCLUSIONS: Pain associated with burn trauma continues to be of considerable significance in the lives of burn victims long after the initial injury and hospitalization. Little research has been done on this population.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.009 | 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 it