Estudio observacional transversal del manejo del dolor irruptivo asociado a los tratamientos en pacientes con ulceras cutaneas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Know the treatment basis of\nbreakthrough pain in the treatment of chronic ulcers\nand assess the breakthrough pain occurred\nduring the topical cure\nMethod: Observational and cross-sectional study.\nMeasurement and assessment of pain using\nthe scale EVA and McGill. Valuation of anxiety\nabout the scale of Anxiety of Hamilton. Descriptive\nstatistics.\nResults: Were evaluated 20 patients who attended\nthe Dermatology Nursing Unit, sores and\nwounds of the University General Hospital of Valencia.\nPatients treated with fentanyl significantly\ndecrease your feeling of pain compared to others\nthat are basic treaties with acetaminophen and/\nor metamizole.\nConclusions: Patients treated with opioids\nas is the fentanyl, are more likely to feel less\nbreakthrough pain during the topical cures. The\nmajority of patients observed describe the pain\nqualitatively as: Press, cramp, flashing, prick.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".