Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To report the personal experiences of patients undergoing awake craniotomy for brain tumor resection. METHODS: We carried out a qualitative descriptive survey of patients` experiences with awake craniotomies for brain tumor resection. The survey was conducted through a standard questionnaire form after the patient was discharged from the hospital. RESULTS: Of the 9 patients who met the inclusion criteria and underwent awake craniotomy, 3 of those patients reported no recollection of the operation. Five patients had auditory recollections from the operation. Two-thirds (6/9) reported that they did not perceive pain. Five patients remembered the head clamp fixation, and 2 of those patients classified the pain from the clamp as moderate. None of the patients reported that the surgery was more difficult than anticipated. CONCLUSION: Awake craniotomy for surgical resection of brain tumors was well tolerated by patients. Most patients reported that they do not recall feeling pain during the operation. However, we feel that further work and exploration are needed in order to achieve better control of pain and discomfort during these types of operations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".