Surgical sensation during caesarean section: a qualitative 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: Caesarean section (CS) is a major abdominal surgery performed usually on a young and healthy population under neuraxial anesthesia with little to no sedation. This creates a distinct surgical experience whereby patients are aware of the surgical process, physical sensations, and their environment. This study aimed to provide an in-depth descriptive assessment of subjective surgical experience during CS under regional anaesthesia. We expected the information gained would enhance our current understanding and better alleviate patient anxiety through informed counselling. METHODS: This qualitative descriptive study was conducted at a Canadian academic centre. Twenty patients participated in semi-structured interviews within a week of CS, using an interview guide developed for this study. Patient medical records were reviewed to collect demographic and surgical information. Thematic analysis was conducted using an inductive approach to determine common themes. RESULTS: Nine themes were identified. Five themes were identified in the category of surgical sensation and four themes were identified in the category of peri-operative education. CONCLUSIONS: Patients commonly experienced pressure and movement sensations at varying intensity, and most did not experience pain. Environmental factors, including sounds and distraction by the newborn, affected perception of surgical sensation. Patients wish to receive pre-operative counselling regarding potential surgical sensations, as well as ongoing communication from their anaesthesiologist. These results can be used to guide informed discussions with patients and direct further investigation in this area.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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 it