Pain, psychosocial tests, pain sensitization and laparoscopic pelvic surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Individuals with non-acute pain are challenged with variable pain responses following surgery as well as psychological challenges, particularly depression and catastrophizing. The purpose of this study was to compare pre- and postoperative psychosocial tests and the associated presence of sensitization on a cohort of women undergoing elective laparoscopic surgery for non-acute pain defined as pain sufficient for surgical investigation without persistent of chronic pain. METHODS: The study was a secondary analysis of a previous report (Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014 Oct;211(4):360-8.). The study was a prospective cohort trial of 77 women; 61 with non-acute pain and 16 women for a tubal ligation. The women had the following tests: Pain Disability Index, Pain Catastrophizing Scale, CES-D (Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale) depression scale and the McGill Pain Scale (short form) as well as their average pain score and the presence of pain sensitization. All test scores were correlated together and comparisons were done using paired t-test. RESULTS: There were reductions in pain and psychosocial test scores that were significantly correlated. Pre-operative sensitization indicated greater changes in psychosocial tests. CONCLUSIONS: There was a close association of tests of psychosocial status with average pain among women having surgery on visceral tissues. Incorporation of these tests in the pre- and postoperative evaluation of women having laparoscopic surgery appears to provide a means to a broader understanding of the woman's pain experience.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".