COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF PAIN AND LIFE QUALITY IN THE PATIENTS AFTER OPEN AND VIDEO-ASSISTED LOBECTOMY FOR LUNG CANCER
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The pain and pain syndrome remain to be serious problems of clinical medicine and surgery as one of its aspects. The positive correlation was found out between the type of surgery and post-operative pain in abdominal, thoracic and orthopedic surgeries. Materials and methods. Results of a questionnaire survey in 130 patients were analyzed; from 2015 to 2017 all those patients had lobectomies for lung cancer using video-assisted thoracoscopic or open accesses in the Thoracic Department of Petrov National Medical Research Center of Oncology. The intensity of pain and life quality in the post-operative period were assessed using visual analogue scales, the Wong-Baker FACES pain rating scale, verbal rating scales, and McGill pain questionnaire. In order to assess life quality, the non-specific questionnaire of SF-36 was used in the cancer patients and those enrolled in the clinical studies of EORTC QLQ-C30 including the special module of QLQ-LC13 for lung cancer patients. The obtained results were analyzed and it was found out that intensity of pain was statistically significantly lower in video-assisted thoracoscopic access versus thoracotomy (U = 678.00; p < 0.05). When using the questionnaires of SF-36 (U = 8,742.50; p < 0.05) and EORTC QLQ-C30 (U = 3,759.00; p < 0.05) and the special module of QLQ-LC13 for lung cancer (U = 4,243.00; p < 0.05), the obtained data also indicated the better life quality and functions, reduction of pathologic manifestations versus open surgical access. Conclusion: Reduction in the pain intensity and higher life quality were typical of surgeries with use of video-assisted thoracoscopic technologies versus classical open access.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".