MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2627048024 · doi:10.15587/1729-4061.2017.95157

Development of a mathematical model for predicting postoperative pain among patients with limb injuries

2017· article· en· W2627048024 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marine Georgiyants, Oleksandr M. Khvysyuk, Natalіya Boguslavskaуa, Olena Vysotska, Anna Pecherska

Bibliographic record

VenueEastern-European Journal of Enterprise Technologies · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVisual analogue scalePhysical therapyMedicineObjectificationPhysical medicine and rehabilitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A mathematical model is devised to predict the probability of development of postoperative pain among patients of young age, operated on in a planned manner for the limb injuries. As the model predictors we selected: the level of pain before operation, determined by the visual analog scale, result of evaluation of cognitive abilities by the Montreal scale and level of the mean blood pressure. The application of the developed model makes it possible to improve quality of providing the patients with anesthesiological assistance. The results obtained might be used in the development of information decision support system for a physician-anaesthesiologist for the objectification and automation of the process for determining the probability of development of postoperative pain syndrome. The introduction of such a system into clinical practice will make it possible to reduce the load on the medical staff and decrease the amount of anaesthetising preparations for patients, whose value of the level of pain before operation, determined by the visual analog scale after the operation, does not exceed 3 points, as well as to conduct more adequate analgesia among patients with a higher value of this indicator.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.481

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEastern-European Journal of Enterprise TechnologiesSame topicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical OutcomesFrench-language works237,207