Physicians' Assessments Versus Measured Symptoms of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome Type 1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the validity of physician's judgements of symptoms associated with Complex Regional Pain Syndrome Type 1. METHODS: The validity of physicians' judgments was assessed using measurements with regard to presence and severity of pain, temperature and volume asymmetry, and reduction in active range of motion in 66 Complex Regional Pain Syndrome Type 1 outpatients. Measurements were performed using Visual Analog Scales and McGill (number of words chosen total) for pain, infrared thermography for temperature differences, water displacement volumeters for volume differences, and hand-held goniometers for active range of motion. Physicians were blind to the outcomes of the measurements. RESULTS: In general, physicians were capable of determining presence or absence of measured symptoms and indicate the direction of the symptom asymmetry. Establishing presence of temperature and volume asymmetries was, however, inadequate. Poor to moderate correspondence was found for the severity of individual symptoms between physicians' judgments and measurements. For the total number of assessments, correlation coefficients ranged from 0.39 for Volume to 0.68 for Pain. In general, lower correlations and percentages of association for Volume and Temperature were found. Monitoring changes between consecutive patient assessments showed poor correspondence between both assessment methods, with correlation coefficients ranging from 0.25 for Volume to 0.37 for Pain. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that establishing the presence of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome Type 1 symptoms, except for temperature and volume asymmetries, and monitoring of disease progression based on these symptoms can be performed by clinical judgment. The severity of the individual symptoms evaluated in this study should be measured with reliable and valid measurement instruments.
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 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 | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".