Notice bibliographique
Résumé
DENNIS C. TURK and RONALD MELZACK (EDS.) Handbook of Pain Assessment, Second Edition New York: The Guilford Press, 2001, 784 pages (ISBN 1-57230-488-X, US$75, Hardcover) Reviewed by PATRICK MCGRATH The Handbook of Pain Assessment is a comprehensive review of the state of the art of pain assessment. The book consists of 36 chapters organized in six major sections, an introduction and a conclusion. The sections are: measurement of pain, assessment of behavioural expressions of pain, medical and physical evaluations, psychological evaluation, specified pain states, and methodological issues. The editors are distinguished psychologists who have made major contributions to the literature on pain. Turk and Melzack have chosen an impressive roster of contributors. Many are senior clinician scientists but there are a number of rising stars. Most are from the United States but about a fifth of the authors are from Canada. The rest of the world is not really represented. Most of the authors are psychologists but there is a smattering of other professions. I should alert the reader of this review that, although I did not write any of the chapters, nor have I collaborated with the editors, both editors and many of the authors are well known to me. A few are friends and collaborators. Several authors have cited my work. However, I think I can give a fair review of the book. The chapters are generally well written and they appear to have been well edited. I could find very few typographical errors and there is little redundancy across chapters. Although the chapters are quite scholarly and well referenced, there are many practical aspects. For example, there are dozens of tables and many figures. As well, many chapters include helpful appendices of specific assessment measures. The eminence of the editors, the quality of the authors, and the breadth of coverage will ensure that this volume is widely used. Each reader will have his or her own favourite chapters. The book is too long for me to review all the chapters that I thought were very good. However, I personally was delighted and challenged by the very detailed and scholarly chapter on psychophysical approaches. The discussion of affect in pain in this chapter is the most sensible I have seen. As well, I learned a lot from the chapter on neuropathic pain. The insights that I gained from this chapter will change what I do in the clinic. The chapters on the elderly and children were detailed and helpful. The chapter on pain assessment in the cognitively impaired was very welcome as this population has been so poorly assessed. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,058 | 0,051 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».