Psychotherapy in the treatment of chronic refractory orofacial pain. Case reports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Psychological intervention can contribute to repairing the quality of life and altering behavior while dealing with chronic orofacial pain, especially those that can become refractory to treatments. Thus, the objective of this study was to present the narratives of three patients with refractory chronic neuropathic pain during the process of psychotherapeutic intervention and the follow-up results. CASE REPORTS: Pain behavior, pain perception and depressive and anxious symptoms were assessed. Patients were under treatment at the Orofacial Pain Clinic and the instruments used in the beginning and end of psychotherapy were the visual analog scale, Beck Inventories (anxiety and depression), Wisconsin Pain Inventory, McGill Pain Questionnaire and Pain Catastrophizing Scale. They attended weekly 50-minute sessions. Each narrative was qualitatively analyzed and the comparison between the evaluations made before and after psychotherapy was included in the context of a phenomenological approach. CONCLUSION: Emotional familiar conflicts and fear of pain crises were the most important aspects described by these patients. Case 1 presented the less cooperative profile and secondary gains. Despite of that, all cases presented improvement and psychotherapy helped to cope with their problems and pain. There was a remarkable impact on the life of patients as well as on their cooperation with pain treatments while helping the patients to build a proactive attitude and to understand their role in their condition.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".