Análise da intensidade, aspectos sensoriais e afetivos da dor de pacientes em pós-operatório imediato
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the pain of patients in the immediate postoperative period during admission, an hour after admission, and at discharge of the post-anesthesia care unit in terms of intensity, and sensory and affective aspects. METHODS: Analytical, cross-sectional study with 336 patients. Data were collected using a sociodemographic and clinical form, the Numeric Pain Rating Scale, and the short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire. Data collection occurred from September to October 2015 at the post-anesthesia care unit of a general hospital in the north-west of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. The significance level of the descriptive and statistical analyses was set at p<0.05. RESULTS: According to the data, 57.3% of the patients did not report pain and 47% felt pain from admission to discharge. Patients submitted to cancer and trauma surgeries reported more pain (p<0.01). At admission and maintenance, there was a prevalence of moderate and intense pain, and at discharge, a predominance of mild and moderate pain. CONCLUSIONS: The results showed a high percentage of patients with pain in the immediate postoperative period from admission to discharge. These findings can encourage researchers and health workers to conduct further investigations with the larger number of patients to allow for inferences.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it