Systematic review of observational (behavioral) measures of pain for children and adolescents aged 3 to 18 years
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Observational (behavioral) scales of pain for children aged 3 to 18 years were systematically reviewed to identify those recommended as outcome measures in clinical trials. This review was commissioned by the Pediatric Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (www.immpact.org). In an extensive literature search, 20 observational pain scales were identified for review including behavior checklists, behavior rating scales, and global rating scales. These scales varied in their reliance on time sampling and inclusion of physiological items, facial and postural items, as well as their inclusion of multiple dimensions of assessment (e.g., pain and distress). Each measure was evaluated based on its reported psychometric properties and clinical utility. Scales were judged to be indicated for use in specific acute pain contexts rather than for general use. Two scales were recommended for assessing pain intensity associated with medical procedures and other brief painful events. Two scales were recommended for post-operative pain assessment, one for use in hospital and the other at home. Another scale was recommended for use in critical care. Finally, two scales were recommended for assessing pain-related distress or fear. No observational measures were recommended for assessing chronic or recurrent pain because the overt behavioral signs of chronic pain tend to habituate or dissipate as time passes, making them difficult to observe reliably. In conclusion, no single observational measure is broadly recommended for pain assessment across all contexts. Directions for further research and scale development are offered.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it