Colonoscopy and the psyche – pain and discomfort associations with affect and cognitive functions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Colonoscopy is an important diagnostic and therapeutic procedure, however it causes considerable discomfort in patients. Their psychological functioning is sometimes not sufficiently taken into account by the medical staff, preoccupied with somatic conditions. The aim of this study was to reveal affective and cognitive aspects of how patients undergoing colonoscopy function in order to better understand periprocedural discomfort and pain and suggest interventions to reduce them. Material and methods: A total number of 101 patients, undergoing colonoscopy during their stay at the internal ward, were asked to participate in this prospective, observational study. Three measurements were made: the day before the examination, on the colonoscopy day (after bowel cleansing, before the procedure) and the following day. The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, Beck Depression Inventory II, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, short version of The Illness Perceptions Questionnaire , as well as analog scales (measuring pain, sadness, anxiety, irritability, general discomfort and distress) were used. Ultimately, 50 people completed the study. Results: It has been shown that pain and discomfort on the colonoscopy day correlate positively with all measured aspects of negative affect. On the colonoscopy day 18% of the subjects revealed depressive symptoms matching a depressive episode, while 56.6% of the subjects displayed a high level of state anxiety. The worse the patient's understanding of the disease, the more periprocedural pain he/she experiences. Their cognitive functioning is worse on the colonoscopy day. Conclusions: The results suggest that it is advisable to educate patients early enough (not on the day of the procedure) about their ailments and planned colonoscopy. Keywords: psychiatry, colonoscopy, pain, emotions, cognitive function
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".