A physiological assessment of patient pain during surgery with wide-awake local anesthesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Patients receiving surgery with wide-awake local anesthesia typically report little or no intraoperative pain. However, self-report assessments of pain are susceptible to bias. In the present study, patient self-report ratings were supplemented with objective physiological measures of electrodermal activity. METHODS: Fifteen patients receiving forefoot surgery using wide-awake local anesthesia were recruited. Pain ratings and skin conductance responses were acquired during the initial anesthetic injection (into unanesthetized tissue), during a follow-up anesthetic injection (into anesthetized tissue), and during five intraoperative procedures. RESULTS: The highest ratings of self-reported pain coincided with the initial anesthetic injection, and pain ratings were similarly low at all remaining measurement points. Fourteen patients reported no pain beyond the initial injection, whereas one patient reported minimal pain during two intraoperative procedures. Skin conductance data were consistent with pain ratings such that responses to the initial injection were significantly larger than responses at any subsequent measurement point. CONCLUSION: These results provide further evidence that patients experience little or no pain during surgery with wide-awake local anesthesia.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".