Analysis of the validation of existing behavioral pain and distress scales for use in the procedural setting
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
BACKGROUND: Assessing procedural pain and distress in young children is difficult. A number of behavior-based pain and distress scales exist which can be used in preverbal and early-verbal children, and these are validated in particular settings and to variable degrees. METHODS: We identified validated preverbal and early-verbal behavioral pain and distress scales and critically analysed the validation and reliability testing of these scales as well as their use in procedural pain and distress research. We analysed in detail six behavioral pain and distress scales: Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Pain Scale (CHEOPS), Faces Legs Activity Cry Consolability Pain Scale (FLACC), Toddler Preschooler Postoperative Pain Scale (TPPPS), Preverbal Early Verbal Pediatric Pain Scale (PEPPS), the observer Visual Analog Scale (VASobs) and the Observation Scale of Behavioral Distress (OSBD). RESULTS: Despite their use in procedural pain studies none of the behavioral pain scales reviewed had been adequately validated in the procedural setting and validation of the single distress scale was limited. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need to validate behavioral pain and distress scales for procedural use in preverbal or early-verbal children.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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