Pain Treatment Thresholds in Children After Major Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were to use a self-report pain scale to examine child pain treatment thresholds after major surgery (i.e., the level of pain they are comfortable with before requiring analgesia), as well as to examine agreement between mother-, nurse-, and child-rated pain treatment thresholds. METHODS: Twenty-five children aged 6 to 16 years were interviewed for 3 consecutive days after major surgery. Subjects used the Faces Pain Scale to rate their current pain, worst postoperative pain, and pain level at which they would like to receive analgesia (the pain treatment threshold). Parents and nurses also estimated the child pain treatment thresholds. RESULTS: For day 1, mean pain was 1.86 of a maximum of 6, mean worst pain was 4.16, and mean pain treatment threshold was 2.28. For day 2, these values were 1.90, 4.10, and 2.54, and for day 3 they were 1.62, 4.56, and 1.85, respectively. Mean scores for all 3 days were as follows: pain, 1.79; worst pain, 4.15; and pain treatment threshold, 2.33. Although mother-nurse ratings were correlated (0.471), mother-child and nurse-child ratings were not significantly correlated. Using the pain treatment threshold as the criterion, 36% of our subjects were undermedicated after the first day of surgery. CONCLUSION: Pain treatment thresholds seem to be lower in children after major as compared with minor surgery. Parents and nurses are not accurate in rating child pain treatment thresholds. Parents tended to overestimate their child's pain treatment threshold, whereas nurses were less consistent in their scoring.
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 | 0.019 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".