British Journal of Anaesthesia 1995; 74: 271-276 Psychological characteristics and the effectiveness of patient-controlled analgesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have evaluated the level of state and trait anxiety, neuroticism, extroversion and coping style as predictors of the effectiveness of patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) in 110 patients under-going total abdominal hysterectomy. After operation patients were allocated to receive pain control with either PCA or im injections (IMI). Pain was assessed using the short form McGill pain question-naire at 6, 18 and 24 h after operation, and by recording the amount of analgesic consumed in the first 24 h after surgery. Both state anxiety and coping style were significant predictors of post-operative pain, irrespective of the method of analgesia used. Patients using PCA experienced significantly better pain control than those receiving IMI. However, it was those with high levels of state anxiety who experienced the greatest reduction in pain with PCA. In addition to achieving better pain control, patients who received PCA used signifi-cantly less analgesia and were discharged earlier than patients who received IMI. (Br. J. Anaesth.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".