Characterization of pain resulting from perineal trauma in women with vaginal delivery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Perineal pain in the puerperium of women with perineal traumas can affect the quality of life and interfere with normal activities and physiological needs. In addition, many obstetric practitioners neglect this symptom and an incipient scientific production about the characterization of this pain is observed. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the characteristics of perineal pain in women with perineal traumas due to episiotomy and laceration, according to the Brazilian Version of the McGill Pain Questionnaire, in a public maternity hospital in the interior of Bahia. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was carried out with 499 postpartum women who had a vaginal delivery and who presented with perineal pain associated with local traumas. RESULTS: The characterization of perineal pain was the same for both traumas, being described as “that jerk”, “boring” and “uncomfortable”. CONCLUSION: Perineal pain has considerable intensity and causes discomfort in women. Therefore, it is important that the episiotomy is performed in a restricted way and that the professionals seek to use techniques of perineal protection, as this will reduce the frequency of perineal pain and provide greater comfort to the woman in the immediate puerperium.
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 | 0.000 | 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".