Impact of preoperative education on pain management outcomes after coronary artery bypass graft surgery: a pilot.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients have been found to receive inadequate analgesia despite moderate to severe pain after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. The purpose of this pilot study was to evaluate a preadmission educational booklet for patients undergoing their first uncomplicated CABG. A randomized controlled trial (RCT) was undertaken at the largest cardiovascular centre in Canada. Repeated measures were used to compare data from 3 interviews: at baseline, day 3, and day 5. Patients were randomly assigned to one of 3 groups at the preadmission clinic 2 to 7 days before surgery: (1) generic hospital booklet and videotape (control), (2) control + pain booklet, or (3) control + pain booklet and interview; 45 subjects completed all 3 interviews. Measures were the McGill Pain Questionnaire-Short Form and the American Pain Society Patient Outcome Questionnaire. For all groups, analgesic administration was inadequate (19.89[13.37] mg morphine equivalents/24 hours) despite unrelieved pain (6.63[2.46], 0-10). However, patients receiving the interventions in addition to control care received 46% more analgesia than patients receiving control care alone and had fewer concerns about asking for help and taking analgesia. Changes were not required in the intervention booklet or measures.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".