MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2390304557

Postoperative Pain in Patients Undergoing Urologic Endoscopy

2005· article· en· W2390304557 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Qing Dong

Bibliographic record

VenueXiandai linchuang yixue shengwu gongchengxue zazhi · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUreteral procedures and complications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLithotomy positionPercutaneous nephrolithotomySurgeryVisual analogue scaleAnesthesiaPercutaneous
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective To investigate the postoperative p ai n in patients undergoing transurethral resection of prostate (TURP), ureterosco pic lithotomy (URL) or minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MPCNL). Methods All adult cases scheduled for procedure were randomize d into four groups. Group Ⅰwas performed URL: subgroup ⅠLU was left side (n=5 2), ⅠRU was right side (n=57),and ⅠDU was double side (n=1). Group Ⅱwas pe rformed MPCNL:subgroup ⅡLP was left (n=66) and ⅡRP was right (n=63). Group Ⅲ was performed TURP (n=59). Group Ⅳ:subgroup ⅣT was performed TURP (n=30),Ⅳ P was performed MPCNL (n=34). Lornoxicam was injected when the operation ended, and used with PCIA then. The maximum of pain (Pmax) and the degree of pain i n the 24th hour (P24) evaluated by Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), McGill Pain Ques tionaire were tested in 24h after operation. Results Pmax or P2 4 was significant between each subgroup of group Ⅱ and group Ⅲ, and each subg roup of groupⅠ (p0.05 ). The pain site was at perineum in gro up Ⅰor Ⅲ , at the waist of operative side in group Ⅱ. Conclusion Postoperation pain should be actively reliefved after TURP or MPCNL, and Lorn oxicam is effective.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueXiandai linchuang yixue shengwu gongchengxue zazhiSame topicUreteral procedures and complicationsFrench-language works237,207