Pain and Psychological Characteristics in Women Waiting for Gynaecological Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Pain is frequently a complaint prior to gynaecological surgery. Psychological factors are also known to influence the experience of pain. The primary objective of this study was to assess the prevalence of pain and the relationship between psychological factors and pain in women awaiting gynaecological surgery. METHODS: Four hundred twenty-nine women in a tertiary care centre in southeastern Ontario were included in this cross-sectional analysis, which was embedded in a larger prospective study. Pain was assessed using the Brief Pain Inventory, anxiety using the State Trait Anxiety Inventory, depressive symptoms using the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale, somatization using the Seven Symptom Screening Test, and catastrophizing with an abbreviated coping strategies questionnaire. RESULTS: Eighteen percent of women reported high anxiety, 37% reported depressive symptoms, 47% had two or more symptoms of somatization, and 40% reported elevated pain catastrophizing. Approximately one third reported moderate to severe pain intensity and interference. Of those reporting pain, 81% believed their pain was due to their primary condition. Depressive symptoms, somatization, and catastrophizing were associated with elevated pain intensity and interference. CONCLUSION: The responses suggest a substantial burden of pain, anxiety, and depressive symptoms in women awaiting gynaecological surgery. Further research is needed to assess the management of these symptoms and their impact on health care resources and the well-being of women in this setting.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".