Dolor isquémico muscular. II Su evaluación mediante el cuestionario McGill del dolor en la realización repetida de un test experiemental
Bibliographic record
Abstract
El dolor esquémico muscular experimentado por 11 sujetos sanos durante la realización de un test experimental, . repetido en tres ocasiones consecutivas, fue evaluado mediante la puntuación y análisis del Cuestionario McGill del Dolor, completado por los individuos tras la finalización de cada prueba. Se comprobó la reducción estadísticamente significativa de tres índices, Número de Palabras Seleccionadas, Indice de Evaluación del Dolor Total e Indice de Evaluación del Dolor Sensorial, entre el primero y el tercero de los tests realizados. Los índices que reflejan los aspectos Afectivo y Evaluativo del dolor no experimentaron variaciones significativas. Se comentan las posibles interpretaciones de estos hallazgos, especialmente en relación con la naturaleza de la prueba experimental realizada y la aparición de un incremento en la Tolerancia al Dolor, del primero al tercer test, previamente comunicada en este grupo. Estos resultados subrayan la necesidad de utilizar grupos de control adecuados cuando se evalúan medidas terapéuticas analgésicas mediante métodos experimentales.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".