Pain and Anxiety Experience in the Choice of Epidural Analgesia in Delivery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The experience of labor pain is a complex process that represents the interaction of the nociceptive stimulus within the physiologic process with a series of psychological factors. The aim of this study was to investigate the relation between the choice of epidural analgesia as a form of pain management and psychological state of woman in labor; moreover, whether the women in labor with a higher level of anxiety have a more intensive experience of pain during labor and therefore decide on epidural analgesia. Pain was evaluated by the visual analog scale, while the sensory and affective pain components were evaluated by the McGill Pain Questionnaire, and anxiety as a trait was measured with the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory-form X. Women in labor with a higher level of anxiety had a significantly increased affective component of pain, but did not significantly more frequently decide on labor with epidural analgesia. The women having chosen epidural analgesia experienced more intense pain during delivery before epidural analgesia, with the sensory component of pain being less pronounced in the women in labor without epidural analgesia, while there was no difference in the affective component of pain.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".