Characterization of chronic pain in women undergoing breast cancer treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The objective of this study was to characterize chronic pain in women undergoing surgical treatment for breast cancer. Methodology: This is a transversal study of quantitative and qualitative basis. Data collection was performed at a tertiary breast cancer treatment center located in central Brazil. We used the McGill Pain Questionnaire structured pain assessment questionnaire in its Brazilian version (BR – MPQ) and the Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Results: A total of 99 patients were interviewed, of which 46 were included in the study. Notably, 30 (65.2%) patients underwent quadrantectomy for surgical treatment of breast cancer. A type of breast reconstruction technique was used in 26 (56.5%) patients, most of them immediately. Sentinel lymph node biopsy was performed in 45 (97.8%) patients, but 22 (47.8%) required axillary lymphadenectomy for some oncological reason. Notably, 35 (76.0%) patients underwent neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy, and 40 underwent radiotherapy (87.0%). We observed a predominance of intermittent and pulsating pain, with a mean intensity of 5.5 on the VAS. In the McGill questionnaire, a total score of 28.24 (±14.51) was observed. All participants had chronic pain of the intermittent type, starting after surgery, located in the surgery scar and in the ipsilateral arm. The sensory domain contributed the most to pain perception, with an average of 16.83 (±7.52). The pain assessment category was reported by 41 (89.1%) patients, followed by the sensitive (n=15; 32.6%), miscellaneous (n=14; 30.4%), and affective (n=12; 26.1%). Chronic pain was predominantly characterized as pulsating, throbbing, sensitive, punishing, and strong. According to the VAS, the average intensity reported was 5.52 (±2.61). Conclusion: Our study characterized chronic pain in women undergoing surgical treatment for breast cancer, which may help identify and manage this symptom.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".