MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1550531151 · doi:10.1155/2006/197616

Children’s Self‐Reports of Pain Intensity: Scale Selection, Limitations and Interpretation

2006· review· en· W1550531151 on OpenAlexaff
Carl L. von Baeyer

Bibliographic record

VenuePain Research and Management · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersInternational Association for the Study of Pain
KeywordsInterpretation (philosophy)Intensity (physics)Selection (genetic algorithm)Scale (ratio)PsychologyArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceCartographyGeographyPhysicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most children aged five years and older can provide meaningful self-reports of pain intensity if they are provided with age-appropriate tools and training. Self-reports of pain intensity are an oversimplification of the complexity of the experience of pain, but one that is necessary to evaluate and titrate pain-relieving treatments. There are many sources of bias and error in self-reports of pain, so ratings need to be interpreted in light of information from other sources such as direct observation of behaviour, knowledge of the circumstances of the pain and parents' reports. The pain intensity scales most commonly used with children - faces scales, numerical rating scales, visual analogue scales and others - are briefly introduced. The selection, limitations and interpretation of self-report scales are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.312 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations441
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePain Research and ManagementSame topicPediatric Pain Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207