The Relationships Between Pain Perception and Quality of Life in Addicts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: Pain in addicts is a physiological and psychological variable that can affect Quality of Life (QOL).The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationships between pain perception and (QOL) in addicts. Method and Instrument:This study has a descriptive -correlational method.In this crosssectional study 100 addicts who were referred to addiction treatment centers and aged between 20 and 55 years old were studied.The sample was selected by purposive sampling method.They completed the WHO-QOL scale and McGill pain questionnaire.To test the hypotheses, Pearson correlation & multiple regression tests were used.Data were analyzed by SPSS-22. Findings:The results of this study showed that there is a significant relationship between pain and QOL in addicts.According to the results of this study, 18.1% of the variance in QOL variables were explained by pain.Conclusion: To conclude, it seems that addicts who percept more severe pain percept lower QOL.Therefore, it is possible to predict the QOL of addicts through their pain severity perception.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".