Matching males and females undergoing Shouldice repair using a prospective, longitudinal design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Sex differences in chronic postsurgical pain have been reported, with the main findings indicating that females experience a greater incidence and severity of pain than males; however, it remains unclear to what these sex differences are attributable. We sought to compare pain and related psychological factors between a matched sample of male and female patients 3 months and 1 year after Shouldice repair. Methods: Male and female participants who underwent Shouldice repair were manually matched 1:1 and compared on 10 variables: age, body mass index, smoking status, preoperative depression and anxiety scores, living status (alone or with others), American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status health classification, preoperative chronic pain, preoperative hernia pain, preoperative pain catastrophizing scores, and nerve handling during surgery. Data on pain were collected from questionnaires administered 3 months and 1 year postoperatively, and data on participant clinical characteristics were collected from operative notes and patient charts. Results: There were 28 matched male–female pairs at 3 months and 21 at 1 year. The average age preoperatively was 56.18 ± 12.48 years. At 3 months postoperative, 18 females and 6 males had pain (p = 0.001), with females reporting more frequent (p = 0.004) and longer durations (p = 0.005) of pain. The 3-month postoperative Brief Pain Inventory Numeric Rating Scale scores (0–10) showed that in terms of pain severity, females had higher “worst pain” (1.61 ± 1.85 v. 0.32 ± 0.77, p = 0.002), “average pain” (0.86 ± 1.08 v. 0.14 ± 0.45, p = 0.002), and “pain now” (0.43 ± 1.20 v. 0 ± 0, p = 0.010) scores than males. Significant differences were not found in the incidence, severity, frequency, or duration of pain between females and males at 1 year. Conclusion: After matching on important confounders, sex differences were found in pain frequency, duration, incidence, and severity at 3 months after Shouldice repair. However, by 1 year after surgery the differences were no longer significant. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov # NCT03986060.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".