Pain perception during electrodiagnostic studies and the impact of learners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION/AIMS: Electrodiagnostic testing (EDX) may be perceived as painful, which may influence patient expectations and test completion. Our aim was to characterize which component of the EDX was more painful, and to determine if any factors, particularly performance by a learner, influenced this perception. METHODS: Participants were prospectively recruited and completed a brief questionnaire to rate their perception of pain before and after each component of the EDX. Demographic information and information about the test itself was collected. RESULTS: A total of 251 participants were recruited, 55.3% female, with a mean age of 52.9 y. Most participants rated pain after nerve conduction studies (NCS) and needle electromyography (EMG) as mild to moderate with a similar number rating each component as more painful than the other. There was no effect of sex on overall ratings, although females felt that the test was more painful than anticipated more often than males. If a learner performed the EMG, it was more likely that the test would be rated as moderately to severely painful, and more likely for the EMG to be rated as more painful than the NCS (p < .05). DISCUSSION: The finding that NCS and EMG perceived pain were similar may help accurately inform patients of test expectations, guide test planning and help reduce the likelihood of incomplete or canceled testing. More effort might be required to help mitigate EMG pain when learners are involved.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".