Is refractory angina pectoris a form of chronic pain? A comparison of two patient groups receiving spinal cord stimulation therapy.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To compare psychological and pain-related characteristics of patients with chronic pain and patients with refractory angina pectoris who had been treated with spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapy. METHOD: Twenty-four patients receiving SCS therapy were interviewed. Four psychological variables were assessed using standardised questionnaires for pain catastrophising, health locus of control, anxiety sensitivity, and self-efficacy. Patients also completed the revised version of the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire, the Short-Form Health Survey, and self-reported measures of global perceived effect, pain, functionality, and satisfaction with SCS therapy. RESULTS: Most patients reported improvements in pain, functionality, and improvement overall. Some health locus of control dimensions were significantly higher for the angina group than the chronic pain group, and chronic angina patients reported significantly lower levels of intermittent pain. Virtually all patients reported being satisfied with SCS therapy. CONCLUSION: Most self-rated psychological and pain-related characteristics were no different between the two groups, which gives some support to the view that refractory angina is a form of chronic pain. The results also add to evidence supporting the use of SCS therapy for refractory angina pectoris; however, differences observed on a few variables may indicate points of focus for the assessment and treatment of 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".