One year follow-up on a randomized study investigating serratus anterior muscle and pectoral nerves type I block to reduced neuropathic pain descriptors after mastectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Breast cancer is the second most common diagnosed type of cancer in women. Chronic neuropathic pain after mastectomy occurs frequently and is a serious health problem. In our previous single-center, prospective, randomized controlled clinical study, we demonstrated that the combination of serratus anterior plane block (SAM) and pectoral nerve block type I (PECS I) with general anesthesia reduced acute postoperative pain. The present report describes a prospective follow-up study of this published study to investigate the development of chronic neuropathic pain 12 months after mastectomy by comparing the use of general anesthesia alone and general anesthesia with SAM + PECS I. Additionally, the use of analgesic medication, quality of life, depressive symptoms, and possible correlations between plasma levels of interleukin (IL)-1 beta, IL-6, and IL-10 collected before and 24 h after surgery as predictors of pain and depression were evaluated. The results showed that the use of SAM + PECS I with general anesthesia reduced numbness, hypoesthesia to touch, the incidence of patients with chronic pain in other body regions and depressive symptoms, however, did not significantly reduce the incidence of chronic neuropathic pain after mastectomy. Additionally, there was no difference in the consumption of analgesic medication and quality of life. Furthermore, no correlation was observed between IL-1 beta, IL-6, and IL-10 levels and pain and depression. The combination of general anesthesia with SAM + PECS I reduced the occurrence of specific neuropathic pain descriptors and depressive symptoms. These results could promote the use of SAM + PECS I blocks for the prevention of specific neuropathic pain symptoms after mastectomy.Registration of clinical trial: The Research Ethics Board of the Hospital Sirio-Libanes/Brazil approved the study (CAAE 48721715.0.0000.5461). This study is registered at Registro Brasileiro de Ensaios Clinicos (ReBEC), and ClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier: NCT02647385.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".