MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410554260 · doi:10.56161/sci.ed.20250217c34

AVALIAÇÃO DA DOR NO PÓS-OPERATÓRIO IMEDIATO: USO DO QUESTIONÁRIO McGILL

2025· book-chapter· pt· W4410554260 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marcelo Moreira Corgozinho

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languagept
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicBusiness and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePsychologyHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A dor é a complicação ou o desconforto mais frequente no período pós-operatório.Este estudo tem como objetivo avaliar o nível de dor no pós-operatório imediato, em pacientes submetidos a intervenção cirúrgica sob anestesia geral.Trata-se de um estudo descritivo, com abordagem quantitativa, que aplicou o Questionário McGILL para avaliar a dor em pacientes no pósoperatório imediato.Como resultados, 52,3% dos participantes pertenciam ao sexo feminino e 47,7% masculino, com idade média de 55 anos.As especialidades cirúrgicas frequentes foram a cirurgia da colunaneurocirurgia e a cirurgia geral.Após a aplicação do questionário, observou-se que 28,57% dos pacientes referiram pelo menos uma ou mais queixas dolorosas referentes aos grupossensitivo, afetivo, avaliativo e miscelâneaenquanto que 71,43% não descreveram queixas de dor.Concluiu-se que a avaliação e o tratamento adequado da dor não é apenas uma questão fisiopatológica, é também uma questão ética.O adequado controle da dor evita o sofrimento desnecessário e proporciona maior satisfação do paciente frente ao atendimento dispensadonenhum paciente deveria sentir dor.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.083
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBusiness and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207