Comparative analysis of the effectiveness of SF-MPQ-2 and VAS for assessing the severity of pain syndrome in dental patients in the postoperative period
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Conducting a comparative analysis of the effectiveness of the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire-2 (SF-MPQ-2) and the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for assessing the severity of pain syndrome in dental patients in the postoperative period in dynamics. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study included 51 patients who received dental surgical treatment. Two groups of patients were formed, depending on the type of surgery and the degree of trauma of the operation. Group 1 - low degree of injury - 28 patients; group 2 - high degree of injury - 23 patients. Patients independently filled out questionnaires at four stages of the study: before surgery, on the 1st, 3rd, and 5th days after surgery as part of scheduled visits. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: In patients of group 2, the severity of pain symptoms was higher than in patients of group 1 in terms of pain symptoms on SF-MPQ-2 at all stages of the study, except the day before surgery. At the same time, there were no differences with the indicators of the VAS scale at any of the stages of the study. The most informative indicators of SF-MPQ-2 are the total indicator MPQ-Sum and the constant pain indicator MPQ-Const, which were significantly higher in group 2 on the 1st day after surgery, taking into account the correction for gender and age. The highest level of coincidence of indicators on VAS and the total score on MPQ-Sum was revealed on the 5th day of the operation, regardless of the degree of trauma of the operation. CONCLUSION: The use of SF-MPQ-2 with a detailed description of pain sensations is the most acceptable way to assess the degree of pain syndrome in operative surgery, especially during the period when the severity of pain symptoms is maximum (in the first days of the postoperative period).
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".