Accuracy of Children′s and Parents′ Memory for a Novel Painful Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite recent progress in understanding memory of pain in adults, the validity of the assumption that these findings extend to children has not been established. Because treatment often is evaluated on the basis of pain recall, it is crucial that the accuracy of pain memories in children be established. OBJECTIVES: To examine children′s ability to recall pain intensity and contextual details associated with a novel painful experience. Furthermore, children′s memories were compared with those of their parents. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Twenty‐three parent‐child dyads were recruited from a sample participating in an earlier study investigating children′s responses to the cold pressor test and parents′ characterization of the children′s responses. Children (age five to 12 years) and parents independently had rated the child′s pain using a seven‐point Faces Pain Scale. Approximately one year later, they were asked to recall the experience and rate the pain again. Memory for contextual details associated with the event also was assessed through a series of open‐ended questions. RESULTS: A 2 (rater) × 2 (time period) repeated measures ANOVA examined the reliability of ratings and differences between parent and child ratings of pain, both recorded at the time of the cold pressor and recalled one year later. There were no significant differences in ratings over time or between parent and child. CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate that children′s memories of a novel painful experience can be consistent over a long interval. Moreover, parents′ ratings also reflect good recall and can be in agreement with those of their children.
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 | 0.003 | 0.022 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".