Toward a phenomic analysis of chronic postsurgical pain following cardiac surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Despite the same surgical approach, up to 40% of patients develop chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP) following cardiac surgery, whereas the rest are chronic pain free. This variability suggests that CPSP is controlled partially through genetics, but the genes for CPSP are largely unknown.Aims The aim of this study was to identify potential CPSP phenotypes by comparing patients who developed CPSP following cardiac surgery vs. those who did not.Methods A research ethics board–approved, cross-sectional study of post–cardiac surgery pain was conducted at Toronto General Hospital from 2011 to 2015. Patients were recruited to complete a short survey of chronic pain scores and the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire–2. A subset of patients completed a longer survey of eight validated pain phenotyping questionnaires and/or four psychophysical assessments. All surveys and psychophysical testing were conducted after surgery. Patients were stratified by presence of chronic pain and groups were compared using descriptive statistics.Results Six hundred forty-three patients completed the short form survey. The mean postsurgery assessment time was 41.5 (SD = ±25.1) months. Over a quarter (27.8%) reported CPSP at the chest as a consequence of their surgery. Of patients reporting CPSP, 46.6% reported mild pain (0–3), 35.8% reported moderate pain (4–7), and 17.6% reported severe pain (7–10) in accordance with the numerical rating scale. Patients with moderate and/or severe CPSP were younger, had a greater body mass index, and had higher anxiety sensitivity, pain catastrophizing, and somatization scores.Conclusions Chronic pain levels after cardiac surgery are associated with anxiety, catastrophizing, and sensory abnormalities in body parts outside the field innervated by injured nerves, indicating the presence of widespread central sensitization to incoming sensory inputs from intact nerves.
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 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 | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".