Comparative Evaluation of Pain, Stress, Neuropeptide Y, ACTH, and Cortisol Levels Between a Conventional Postoperative Care Protocol and a Fast-Track Recovery Program in Patients Undergoing Major Abdominal Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fast-track (FT) postoperative protocol in oncological patients after major abdominal surgery reduces complications and length of postoperative stay compared to the conventional (CON) protocol. However, stress and pain responses have not been compared between the two protocols. OBJECTIVES: To compare stress, pain, and related neuropeptidic responses (adrenocorticotropic hormone [ACTH], cortisol, and neuropeptide Y [NPY]) between FT and CON protocols. METHOD: A clinical trial with repeated measurements was conducted (May 2012 to May 2014) with a sample of 63 hepatectomized or pancreatectomized patients randomized into two groups: FT ( n = 29) or CON ( n = 34). Demographic and clinical data were collected, and pain (Visual Analog Scale [VAS] and Behavioral Pain Scale [BPS]) and stress responses (3 self-report questions) assessed. NPY, ACTH, and cortisol plasma levels were measured at T1 = day of admission, T2 = day of surgery, and T3 = prior to discharge. RESULTS: levels were positively correlated with self-reported stress levels (ρ = .43 and ρ = .45, respectively, p < .05) in the FT group. NPY levels in the FT group were higher than those in the CON group at all time points ( p ≤ .004); this difference remained significant after adjusting for T1 levels through analysis of covariance for age, gender, and body mass index ( F = .003, F = .149, F = .015, respectively, p > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Neuropeptidic levels were higher in the FT group. Future research should evaluate this association further, as these biomarkers might serve as objective indicators of postoperative pain and stress.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".