Avaliação das dimensões da dor no paciente oncológico
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objetivo: mensurar a experiência dolorosa em pacientes oncológicos. Método: pesquisa transversal, descritiva de abordagem quantitativa, com 50 pacientes que realizam tratamento oncológico em um serviço privado localizado na região Noroeste do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul, após aprovação do Comitê de Ética em Pesquisa sob protocolo CAAE nº 14025119.0.0000.5354. O instrumento escolhido foi o Questionário da Dor McGill. Os dados foram armazenados no Microsoft Office Excel e analisados através da estatística descritiva. Resultados: Prevalência do sexo feminino (54%) e câncer de Cólon (20%). Os descritores mais usados foram: Fisgada (54%), Cansativa (52%), Chata (38%) e Aperta (26%) e 80% dos pacientes relataram ausência de dor no momento da entrevista. Conclusão: O Questionário da Dor McGill permite conhecer os aspectos qualitativos da dor, além de dar suporte í enfermagem no planejamento da assistência ao paciente, oferecendo melhora na qualidade da sistematização da assistência de enfermagem.
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 | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".