Pain in adults post surgical repair of congenital heart defects.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to describe pain in adults post surgical repair for congenital heart defects. What is the intensity, sensory, and affective dimensions of pain experienced post-operatively? What is the trend in pain experienced post-operatively over time? What is the effectiveness of post-operative pain management strategies? What factors influence the dimensions of post-operative pain experienced? A descriptive prospective repeated measures design was used with 30 adult congenital heart (ACH) post-operative patients. Pain assessments using the McGill Short Form Questionnaire (MSFQ), a visual analogue pain scale (VAP), and recordings of other variables (analgesic, anxiety, activity level, non-pharmacologic intervention) were performed three times daily until hospital discharge. Mean pain intensity scores ranged from 2.44 +/- 1.31 following extubation to 1.30 +/- 0.66 on post-operative day (POD) five (scale, 0-5). Mean MSFQ scores ranged from 9.26 +/- 7.21 following extubation to 4.40 +/- 5.22 on POD five (scale, 0-45). Mean VAP scores ranged from 50.77 +/- 25.79 following extubation to 18.76 +/- 18.50 on POD five (scale, 0-100). Mean number of narcotic doses per day ranged from 4.61 +/- 2.01 to 1.88 +/- 1.98 on PODs one and five, respectively. Anxiety predicted VAP and MSFQ scores on PODs one and two; anxiety and analgesia doses predicted VAP and MSFQ scores on POD three; analgesia doses predicted MSFQ scores, analgesia and anxiety predicted VAP scores on POD four; analgesia doses and anxiety predicted VAP and MSFQ scores on POD five. No relationships were found among pain and other demographic, treatment, or clinical variables. Overall, pain was reported as mild to moderate intensity, variable in sensations, decreased over time, and adequately managed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".