MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989822739 · doi:10.1016/j.ejpain.2009.08.004

Reliability study in five languages of the translation of the pain behavioural scale Doloplus®

2009· article· en· W1989822739 on OpenAlexaff
Gisèle Pickering, Stephen J. Gibson, S. Serbouti, Patrizio Odetti, Ferraz Gonçalves, Giovanni Gambassi, Hirondina Guarda, Jan P.H. Hamers, David Lussier, Fiammetta Monacelli, Juan Manuel Pérez-Castejón Garrote, Sandra Zwakhalen, D. Barneto, Collectif Doloplus®, Bernard Wary

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Pain · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Management and Opioid Use
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaReliability (semiconductor)Scale (ratio)PsychologyTest (biology)PortuguesePain scalePain assessmentBrazilian PortugueseClinical psychologyPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineLinguisticsPain managementDiseaseCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Non-verbal pain assessment scales are useful tools for pain evaluation in persons with communication disorders and moderate-severe dementia. The Doloplus was one of the first scales to be developed and validated as a pain assessment tool in older adults with dementia. This study aims at evaluating the translation of the Doloplus scale in five languages, as regards test-retest and inter-rater reliability. Results show that both tests are good or excellent for the English, Italian, Portuguese and Spanish versions and moderate for the Dutch version. These results bring a unique opportunity to include the translated Doloplus scale in daily assessment of elderly persons with communication disorders, and future studies should focus on enriching the validation of the scale in each language.

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)0.011
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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.393

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.273
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations46
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of PainSame topicPain Management and Opioid UseFrench-language works237,207