Survey and analysis of the pain status in the patients of emergent hand injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To learn the pain status in the patients of emergent hand injury and analyze the relative factors which influenced the pain. Methods A total of 210 patients of emergent hand injury were investigated with short McGill pain questionnaire and anxious status scale. Results The VAS at the injury happened and at the visit in 210 emergent hand injury patients were (4.87±2.42 ) and (4.70±2.31 ). During the visit, the PRI was ( 3.34±2.35 ), feeling PRI was ( 3.17±2.26 ), emotional PRI was (0. 17±0.67 ),PPI was (2.80±0.26) ,The variance analysis found the VAS of patients had different degree injury in the past had different VAS of this visit ( F=2. 29, P < 0. 05 ). Relative analysis found the severity of this hand injury ( r = 0. 262, P < 0. 01 ) and the S-AI of this visit ( r = 0.390, P < 0.01 ) had positive correlation with the VAS of this visit. The education ( r = - 0. 172, P < 0. 05 ) had negative correlation with the VAS. Conclusions The pain in the patients of emergent hand injury was medium, releasing the anxiety of the patients at the visit could reduce the pain at that time. Key words: Hand injury; Pain; Relative factors
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".