THE ROLE OF HYPNOSIS IN A PATIENT WHO DOES NOT WANT TO GIVE BLOOD SAMPLES IN THE EMERGENCY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: We aimed to present the patient who applied to the emergency department, who did not want to be tested due to fear of giving blood sample, but was discharged after blood sample was taken comfortably with hypnosis application. Case Report: A forty six-year-old female patient was admitted to the emergency department with complaints of headache and fatigue. It was learned that the patient avoided going to the hospital because of the fear of giving blood samples for years. Blood tests were requested from the patient, but the patient stated that she did not want to give blood sample. The patient accepted our offer to take blood under hypnosis and stated that he would try to give blood with this method. Thereupon, the patient was taken to a suitable environment and stretcher in the emergency room. During this hypnosis session, which lasts about 15 minutes, the patient; she gave samples for blood tests very comfortably and happily. The patient, who stated her happiness after the procedure, continued her next procedures in a relaxed way. Conclusion: Hypnosis application is a method that can be used by emergency doctors according to the needs of patients who are fear of giving blood samples. References: 1. Colón Y, Avnet MS. Medical hypnotherapy for pain management. J Pain Palliat Care Pharmacother 2014;28(2):174-6. 2. Hammond DC. Review of the efficacy of clinical hypnosis with headaches and migraines. Int J Clin Exp Hypn 2007;55(2):207-19. 3. Iserson KV. An hypnotic suggestion: review of hypnosis for clinical emergency care. J Emerg Med 2014;46(4):588-96. 4. Willemsen R. Hypnosis technics used to diminish anxiety and fear: review of the literatüre. Rev Belge Med Dent (1984) 2003;58(2):99-104.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".