A survey of children's acute, recurrent, and chronic pain: validation of the Pain Experience Interview
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ultimate objective of our epidemiological research is to complete a longitudinal population-based study to document the prevalence and impact of acute, recurrent, and chronic pain in children and adolescents. As the first phase of our epidemiological research, we developed a comprehensive screening instrument for identifying children with acute, recurrent, and chronic pain, the Pain Experience Interview. We designed this interview to provide information about the lifetime and point prevalence of various pains, and also to provide information about the intensity, affect, duration, and frequency of children's pain. The primary objective of this study was to validate the Pain Experience Interview using the discriminant validation procedure of group differences. The secondary objectives of our study were to obtain descriptive data on children's acute, recurrent, and chronic pain experiences and to conduct exploratory analyses on age- and gender-related differences in children's pain experiences. We interviewed 187 children from five different health groups (arthritis, cancer, enuresis, recurrent headaches, and healthy) to provide distinct subsets of children with respect to their acute, recurrent, and chronic pain experience, and from four different age groups (5-7, 8-10, 11-13, and 14-16 years) to provide distinct subgroups with respect to children's developmental level. To test the interview we determined a priori several study predictions about children's pain experiences. These included four predictions about the common response patterns that we would expect to observe for all children based on our understanding of acute pain caused by trauma/disease, and six predictions about the distinct response patterns that we would expect to observe based on the known differences among children in their experiences of headache, acute treatment-related pain, recurrent pain, and chronic pain. All study predictions were confirmed, demonstrating that the Pain Experience Interview is a valid screening instrument for differentiating children with different types of pain problems. The interview can provide estimates for the lifetime and point prevalence of various pains in children, and data on the intensity, affect, duration, and frequency of their pain experiences.
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 | 0.016 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".