MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7014412310

Pain After Breast Cancer Surgery is Predicted by Pre-Operative Immunological and Psychological Factors

2019· other· en· W7014412310 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueYork University Digital Library (York University) · 2019
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiopsychosocial modelPain catastrophizingBreast cancerMcGill Pain QuestionnaireAnxietyNeuropathic painBreast surgeryPain assessment
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study identified risk factors for pain intensity at rest and with movement, pain qualities and neuropathic pain 24 hours post-breast cancer surgery (BCS). Before surgery 86 women completed demographic, health status, and psychological questionnaires and blood was drawn to measure baseline cytokine levels. Numeric Rating Scale-Rest (NRS-R), NRS-Movement (NRS-M), Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ) and Short-Form Neuropathic Pain Questionnaire (SF-NPQ) were completed 24 hours post-BCS. Backward regression models found significant correlates for NRS-R: younger age, increased pain catastrophizing and bilateral surgery; NRS-M: younger age, increased trait anxiety, bilateral surgery, and mastectomy; SF-MPQ: increased pain catastrophizing, bilateral surgery, and previous breast surgery; and SF-NPQ: decreased interleukin-10 and increased pain catastrophizing. These results support the biopsychosocial model of pain and the importance of measuring multiple pain outcomes. Variables accounting for the most variance in each outcome (pain catastrophizing [NRS-R; SF-MPQ], trait anxiety [NRS-M] and baseline IL-10 [SF-NPQ]) are potentially modifiable.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.173 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueYork University Digital Library (York University)→French-language works237,207→