Bibliographic record
Abstract
The cognitive functions of patients in oncologic pain treatment were assessed three times, over the period of a month.The performance of patients in treatment with opioids (Group Receiving Opioids -GRO, n=14) was compared with that of a group of patients receiving treatment without the administration of opioids n=12).Relations between cognitive function, pain intensity and opioid dose were also analysed.The cognitive function was assessed by the Trail Making Test, Mini-mental State Examination, Digit Span Test, Brief Cognitive Screening Battery and Beck Depression Inventory.In order to identify statistical differences, the significance level was established in 5%.The longitudinal analysis to the GWO showed improvement in incidental recall (P=0,005) and learning (P=0,016); however, deterioration in the constructional and visuoperceptual abilities was noticed (P=0,039).Improvement was observed in the incidental recall (P=0,038) of the GRO.In both groups there were no changes in the Trail Making Test, Mini-mental State Examination, Digit Span Test, Beck Depression Inventory and other tests from Brief Cognitive Screening Battery.The comparison between groupsshowed that GWO had better performance in attention/concentration, working memory (P=0,029) and also in executive functions (P=0,023).The analyses of the correlations in GRO demonstrated that less intense pain corresponds to higher scores in Mini-mental State Examination (P =0,001), in incidental recall (P=0,030 e P =0,014), in immediate recall (P=0,042) and in delayed recall (P=0,037) assessed by the Brief Cognitive Screening Battery.No correlations were observed in GWO.There was no correlation between opioid dose and performance in the results.In the longitudinal tests and comparative analyses between the groups, GWO had better performance than GRO.However, this superiority was not verified in the three assessments, as well as in the case of the majority of the tests results.The negative correlation between pain intensity and cognitive function on the group receiving opioids indicated that pain intensity had an influence on cognitive performance.Further research is necessary to broaden the knowledge about this issue.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".