[Pain intensity versus emotional state and activity in adolescents of cancer diseases].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Knowledge about pain, its mechanisms of origin and interaction, has been dynamically developing recently. However, the disease and pain influence on an adolescent patient, despite research, seems to be recognised insufficiently and needs further examination. Results of this work have confirmed such needs. Pain, fear, depression and activity of cancer patients were assessed in order to better understand interactions between those elements. Satisfaction with life, feeling of sense of life and its purpose were evaluated at the same time. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 82 adolescents, aged 14 to 20, hospitalized because of cancer participated in the study. Ethical considerations decided that patients in serious clinical state and terminal state were excluded. The study was based on the measurement tools as follow: numerical (NRS) and visual-analogue scale of pain intensity (VAS), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, questionnaire to assess physical, social and intellectual activity--my own design, Purpose in Life Test, McGill Pain Questionnaire - Polish version. RESULTS: The results showed main reasons of pain during hospitalization. The most common cause of pain were diagnostic and treatment procedures. In the cancer group, pain limited activity and pain influenced on fatigue. Fear and depression was observed in small percentage of patients. Correlation between pain, fear and depression showed significant relations. They had sense of aim and sense of life regardless of the group they belonged to. CONCLUSIONS: Obtained results showed that adolescents experience many sources of suffering, both physical and emotional. Analysis of obtained results revealed necessity of deepening and widening research in that direction among adolescents experiencing pain in different stages of disease progression.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".