MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Key Patient Assessment Tools and Treatment Strategies for Pain Management

2008· review· en· W2002339242 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Bill McCarberg, Steven P. Stanos

Bibliographic record

VenuePain Practice · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOpioid Use Disorder Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill UniversityAbbott Laboratories
KeywordsMedicinePain managementKey (lock)Patient assessmentChronic painPain assessmentIntensive care medicinePhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

National survey data indicate that more than 25% of American adults suffer from pain that lasts for more than 24 hours in duration. Chronic pain can have a devastating impact on an individual's relationships, daily functioning, and employment. Although the treatment of pain is something that clinicians face every day, providing optimal care for these patients can be difficult. Many clinicians feel that managing side effects, identifying and managing potential drug abusers, and navigating regulatory and legal issues can make pain management a complicated undertaking. This review discusses key patient assessment and treatment strategy tools, together with common medico-legal concerns to assist clinicians in more effectively managing their patients' pain.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.327 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations18
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePain PracticeSame topicOpioid Use Disorder TreatmentFrench-language works237,207