MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974557290 · doi:10.1177/104990910101800211

A longitudinal study of pain in hospice and pre-hospice patients

2001· article· en· W1974557290 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Michael R. Owens, B. Brent Simmons, Pamela S. Gibson, Dorothy Weeks

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine® · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Management and Opioid Use
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Victoria
KeywordsMedicineHospice careIncidence (geometry)Pain scalePain managementPain assessmentPhysical therapyPalliative careNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pain continues to be a very formidable foe in the care of the hospice patient. The incidence among hospice admissions may range from 50 to 80 percent. With such a high initial incidence of pain, the rapidity with which pain can be controlled becomes a very high priority for the hospice effort. The assessment and management of pain in a home-based hospice program presents some unique problems--and opportunities, in that much of this work is done by hospice nurses on site, rather than by the physician, who might remain quite removed from the process. In the study described below, 250 consecutive admissions to either a hospice, or pre-hospice (bridge) program were assessed for pain on admission. Those with pain scores of 5 or greater (on a 1 to 10 scale) were followed daily for 15 days by phone to reassess pain and treatment effects. Of the 250 consecutive patients surveyed, 41 (16 percent) gave pain scores of 5 or greater. Mean pain scores for the 41 patients dropped to < 5 within 24 hours of admission.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.668

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations12
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine®Same topicPain Management and Opioid UseFrench-language works237,207