Wound Pain as a Determinant of Function in Patients Hospitalised for Burns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Burn wounds most often occur on visible parts of the body. They therefore cause fear of disfigurement and rejection by those around them. In addition, they cause pain. The main aim of this study was to analyse factors affecting the functioning of patients hospitalised for burns. The study included 57 patients hospitalised for burns. Each person was surveyed twice: on day seven after admission and on the day of discharge from the hospital. The following research tools were used: a personal questionnaire to collect clinical data and the scales of the Katz Activities of Daily Living (ADL), the short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) and the Satisfaction with Appearance Scale (SWAP). On the discharge day, compared to day 7, there was an improvement in the patient’s level of functioning in all areas analysed. Pain intensity (p < 0.0001), depression (p < 0.0001) and dissatisfaction with appearance (p = 0.0239) decreased significantly. Improvements in daily functioning were also obtained (p < 0.0001). Multiple regression was performed to estimate the effect of selected variables on patients’ level of functioning. Burn area (p = 0.0126), pain level (questionnaire part B: p = 0.0004 and questionnaire part C: p = 0.0208) and gender (p = 0.0413) had a significant impact on the level of daily functioning. Pain complaints are the most crucial predictor affecting the functional status and depression levels in burn wound patients. Increased levels of depression promote dissatisfaction with one’s appearance.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".