Patient perception of pain versus observed pain behavior during a standardized electrodiagnostic test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Clinicians often assume that observations of pain behavior are adequate for assessment of patient pain perception during procedures. This has not been tested during a standardized electrodiagnostic experience. METHODS: During a prospective trial including extensive, standardized electrodiagnostic testing on persons with lumbar stenosis, vascular claudication, and asymptomatic volunteers, the subjects and an observer rated levels of pain. RESULTS: In 60 subjects, observers significantly under-rated pain (Visual Analog Scale 3.17 ± 2.23 vs. 4.38 ± 2.01, t = -4.577, df = 59, P < 0.001). Perceived pain during testing related to bodily pain as measured by the visual analog, McGill, Pain Disability, and Quebec scales, but not age, duration of symptoms, Tampa kinesiphobia, Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression scale, or SF-36 health quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Persons with worse pain syndromes may perceive more pain during testing than others. Clinicians and researchers should understand that patients may have more pain than they recognize.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".