Pain management among hospitalized cancer patients:a survey in 30 hospitals in Beijing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To investigate the status of pain management in hospitalized cancer patients,so as to provide a basis for cancer pain control.Methods A total of 589 cancer patients from 28 general hospitals and 2 cancer hospitals in Beijing were investigated with Short form-McGill Pain Questionnaire(SF-MPQ),Numerical Rating Scale(NRS),Verbal Rating Scale(VRS) and a self-designed pain management questionnaire.Results The score of NRS was 4.81±2.27.There were 27.85 percent,45.16 percent and 21.90 percent patients suffered from mild,moderate and severe pain,respectively.A total of 538(91.34 percent) cancer patients received analgetic drugs and 447 patients(83.08 percent) took oral analgetic drugs.Among which,293(49.75) patients could use analgetic drugs on time.Only 51(9.48 percent) patients' pain was relieved completely,but 559(84.44 percent) patients felt satisfied with the effect of pain control.Conclusion The outcomes of pain management still need to be improved among cancer patients.Cancer pain management education should be carried on further more.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".