Pain Language of Bone Marrow Transplantation Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies have shown that hypnosis may be effective in reducing intensity of pain among bone marrow transplantation patients whereas cognitive behavioral intervention without imagery was not effective for this group of patients. Since hypnosis alters patients' perception of pain and cognitive behavioral intervention changes patients' beliefs and improves their coping with pain, we hypothesized that sensory pain is more important than affective pain in understanding the pain experience of patients undergoing bone marrow transplantation. To test this hypothesis we administered the McGill Pain Questionnaire longitudinally to 50 consecutive eligible recipients of bone marrow transplantation during hospitalization to assess the different dimensions of pain they experienced. Consistent with our hypothesis, sensory pain fluctuated with treatment stages, and the pattern was consistent with previous findings. Patients reported significantly higher sensory pain than affective pain at all assessment points. In contrast, affective pain remained low and stable throughout the treatment. Our results contribute to the understanding of the nature of pain in bone marrow transplantation and suggest pain management strategies that focus on sensory pain as in hypnosis are more useful for such patients.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".