Clinical correlates of pain with second-trimester genetic amniocentesis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the correlation of clinical factors and maternal perceptions of pain with genetic amniocentesis. MATERIAL AND METHOD: This prospective study of midtrimester, singleton pregnancies was conducted between February 2007 and March 2008. Study variables included patient dermographics, previous amniocentesis, previous abdominal surgery, maternal anxiety score, abdominal wall thickness, needle insertion through placenta and the depth of needle insertion. Maternal pain with performing amniocentesis was subjectively quantified with the Thai short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire. The independent T-test, one way ANOVA and linear regression were used for analysis, a probability value of < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-five pregnant women participated in the present study: 18.4% reported no pain, 69.6% described the pain as mild, 11.2% described the pain as discomforting and 0.8% described the pain as horrible. Mean intensity of pain was 2.1 +/- 1.9 (on a scale 0-10). Pain was most often described as fearful, shooting, throbbing and sharp. Parity, gestational age, maternal BMI, anxiety score, previous surgery, needle insertion through the placenta, abdominal wall thickness and the depth of needle insertion were not correlated with perceived pain. CONCLUSION: Most of the women reported no pain or mild or discomfort with genetic amniocentesis. Clinical factors were not associated with maternal perceptions of pain.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".