Pain Assessment Using Virtual Reality Facemask During Bone Marrow Aspiration: Prospective Study Including Propensity-Matched Analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bone marrow aspiration (BMA) is a medical procedure necessary to the diagnosis and monitoring of patients with hematological or nonhematological disorders. This procedure is considered painful, and patients are generally anxious before and during BMA. OBJECTIVE: This study assesses the effect of immersive virtual reality on pain during BMA. METHODS: This observational prospective and monocentric study enrolled 105 consecutive patients who underwent sternal BMA with lidocaine anesthesia. The study was carried on during 2 periods. First, virtual reality facemask (VRF) was proposed to all patients in the absence of exclusion criteria. During the second period, BMA was performed without the VRF. For all patients, pain intensity after the procedure was assessed using a 10-point numerical pain rating scale (NPRS). All analyses were performed on propensity score-matched cohort (with or without VRF) to evaluate efficacy on NRPS levels. RESULTS: The final matched cohort included 12 patients in the VRF group and 24 in the control group. No difference in anxiety level before BMA evaluated by the patient and by the operator was observed between groups (P=.71 and .42 respectively). No difference of NPRS was observed using VRF when compared to control group (median NPRS 3.8, IQR 2.0-6.3 vs 3.0, IQR 1.9-3.0, respectively; P=.09). CONCLUSIONS: Our study did not prove the efficacy of VRF to reduce pain during BMA.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 it