The quality of life of patients with chronic pain, hospitalized in conservative treatment wards
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction. Pain is one of the most frequent human ailment. Not not only is it the first and often the only symptom of ongoing disease process, but also a warning of impending danger. According to the European epidemiological studies, it is estimated that chronic pain occurs in 19% of the population. This means that within a year this condition is diagnosed in 7 million patients in Poland. Treatment of chronic pain is complicated due to the variety of its origin. Aim. Influence of chronic pain in hospitalized patients on their daily quality of life. Material and methods. The study included 80 patients with a chronic spinal pain syndrome. To evaluate the intensity of pain, the numerical scale (NRS), the verbal scale (VRS) and the abbreviated version of the McGill Questionnaire were used. To measure the quality of life, the SF-36 was used. Results. The results of analysis of the collected material confirmed the impact of chronic pain on the quality of life of the hospitalized. Assessment of pain intensity decreased in the group of patients after one week of treatment. On the other hand, in assessing the overall perception of health, quality of life and its various dimensions, a difference between the two groups and the different stages of the study was observed. Own study confirms the equivalence of psychosocial factors modulating the level of pain and the quality of life. Conclusions. There is a relationship between pain intensity and the level of quality of life as well as its individual components before and after the treatment in patients with chronic spinal pain. Some significant changes between the variables were separated in the accepted stages of the study among people with chronic pain.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".