[Management of acute pain in Italy. Economic aspects and quality of life].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aims to measure quality of life and treatment costs of patients with acute pain due to osteoarticular diseases;2 to asses associations between pain, quality of life and treatment costs from NHS' perspective. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Observational, multicentric study; patients of both gender were enrolled sequentially from March to July 2002 and observed for 30 days. Type of pain was assessed by a McGill Pain Questionnaire, while degree of severity was measured by VAS (Visual Analogue Scale) ranging from 0 (no pain) to 10 (very severe pain). Quality of life was assessed by EQ-5D (EuroQol/Quality of Life in Europe-5 Dimensions). RESULTS: 188 patients matched by gender and age in to four group: male < or =65 years (51), female < or =65 years (59), male > 65 years (42), female > 65 years (36). Male's age ranged from 36 to 88 years, while female's ranged from 31 to 87 years. Groups differ for type of pain. Cost after enrollment (48.99 Euro) is due for about 60% to diagnostic examinations, while pharmacological therapies account for only 17.64 Euro. Mean score of EQ-5D shows a low level of utility (0.265) that reflects a rather law quality of life. Patient older than 65 years had lower score than patient of the same gender but younger. Differences are significant in the dimension anxiety/depression that afflicts women and older patients. CONCLUSIONS: This study valued utility of patients with non oncological acute pain in Italy and health cost of diagnostic and therapeutic path faced by 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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".