Assessment of phantom pain in amputees: Bio-psycho-social approach Valoración del síndrome del dolor fantasma en amputados: Abordaje bio-psico-social
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To investigate the phantom pain through a bio-psycho-social approach. Materials and methods: Fifty-two subjects (both gender) were evaluated with amputations at any level and any etiology, no problems of stump, with and without phantom pain. The rate of pain was assessed with the McGill questionnaire, heart rate variability was assessed with a RR intervals recorder (Firstbeat Bodyguard, Finland). The superficial temperature of the stump was assessed with an infrared camera. Depression was assessed with the Beck inventory, anxiety with the STAI, catastrophism with PCS and quality of life with the SF-36 questionnaire. Results: In the group without pain, the time of amputation and the use of prosthesis showed no correlation with depression and anxiety. In the group with pain depression, anxiety and catastrophism were observed. The longer outcome of amputation, the higher intensity of these symptoms. Perception of phantom pain was significant in the emotional and evaluative dimensions with poorer quality of life in the vitality and physical aspects. There was no direct relationship between heart rate variability and phantom pain. Also, there was no statistically significant difference when the average skin temperature of the stumps was compared in the two groups. Conclusion: The approach to pain should be multidisciplinary, starting from the immediate postoperative and taking into account the four dimensions of pain. It is necessary to understand the relationships between individual components for every patient.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".