Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim:To investigate the quantitative and qualitative characteristics of burn pain in acute period of injury and interrelationships between pain and anxiety. Methods: A cross sectional study carried out in a single burn unit in Kaunas medical Hospital (Lithuania). Subjective experience of the pain was measured by short form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), the pain intensity-by visual analog scale (VAS). Hospital Anxiety and Depression (HAD) scale was used to assess anxiety in acute period. The pain treatment protocol was standartized with morphine patientcontrolled analgesia (PCA) to all patients. Results: During this period 25 patients with burn TBSA>10% were included in the study. 62,9% of the study subjects were males. Components of continuous pain were found in all patients: throbbing in 71,4% of subjects, gnawing 40%, aching 42,8%. Even 84,3% of the patients indicated descriptors of neuropathic pain in acute period: hot burning 68,5%, cold-freezing 31,4%, numbness 5,2%. VAS score of continuous pain on 1st and 2nd days post injury were 7,3±1,4 and 5,4±1,3 respectively. The daily pain scores at day 4,5 and 6 were significantly higher in the neuropathic versus continuous pain... [...].
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".