MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3135832767

Different Qualities of the Subjective Pain Experience Among Patients With Cancer Attending Apeksha Hospital Maharagama

2019· article· en· W3135832767 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
NP Edirisinghe, Ptr Makuloluwa, A.A.T.D. Amarasekara, CSE Goonewardena

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Management and Opioid Use
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMcGill Pain QuestionnaireMedicineCancer painPhysical therapyQuality of life (healthcare)Neuropathic painDescriptive statisticsPain scaleCancerVisual analogue scaleInternal medicineAnesthesiaNursing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cancer pain is a complex and subjective experience that influences a variety of functions, comprising sensory, affective and cognitive components. It is well-known that pain is difficult to describe; patients often do not seem to find the appropriate words to do so. Meanwhile, Short-Form McGill Pain Questionaire-2 (SF MPQ-2) was proven to be a sensitive instrument in evaluating the quality of pain in patients with cancer and other chronic diseases. Aim of this study was to measure different qualities of the subjective pain experience among patients with cancer. A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted at Apeksha Hospital, Maharagama among patients with all types of cancer-related pain of at least a month or longer duration. Consecutive sampling method was used to select 384 participants. Demographic and disease-related data were collected using pre-tested questionnaire and pain qualities and its intensity related data were obtained using a validated Sinhala version of SF MPQ-2; which comprises 22 pain quality word descriptors representing four subscales; continuous pain, intermittent pain, affective pain and neuropathic pain. Pain intensity was measured by 11 points Likert scale; (0 -10; no pain to worst pain). Descriptive analysis was done for demographic and pain severity data using SPSS version 23 for windows. The majority were females (n=231; 60.2%) and mean age of the participants was 56 years (SD ± 11.8), and a majority (n= 95; 24.7%) were having urogenital cancers. Highest mean pain score was reported for aching pain 6.1 (SD ± 3.2) and lowest for gnawing pain 0.73 (SD ± 1.9). Mean pain scores and SD± of the pain subscales were as follows; continuous 22.5(10.8), intermittent 8.1 (8.9), affective 11.1 (9.8) and neuropathic pain 13.9 (10.9). Proper assessment of different qualities of cancer pain is essential for better care, and SF MPQ-2 provides useful pain descriptors comprising sensory and affective domains.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicPain Management and Opioid UseFrench-language works237,207