The Effect of Information Level and Coping Style on Pain and Anxiety in Needle Liver Biopsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biopsy of the liver is an important diagnostic procedure. The procedure is invasive and may be painful for patients. Sedative drugs are not used because the associated drop in blood pressure mimics hemorrhage, a major complication of the procedure. Cognitive and behavioural techniques have been used to decrease stress in patients undergoing other medical procedures. In the present study, it is postulated that providing procedural and sensory information may reduce patient anxiety levels. Patient coping styles were evaluated and anxiety and pain levels were assessed by using a visual analogue scale. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of two groups. The control group received basic information about the procedure. The experimental group received the same basic information followed by more detailed educational information. Subjects also filled out the Krantz Health Opinion Survey, a short questionnaire used to classify coping styles as either information-seeking or information-avoiding. Seventy-five subjects (38 control and 37 experimental) with similar demographics were included in the present study. No significant differences were found in anxiety levels or pain levels 30 min and 6 h post-biopsy. There was also no significant difference between groups once coping style was added into the analysis. The study failed to show any advantage in providing additional information to subjects before liver biopsy, regardless of coping style.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".