Development and Validation of a Computerized Visual Analog Scale for the Measurement of Pain in Patients With Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop a computerized visual analog scale (cVAS) system and determine if it could be used in place of the traditional 100-mm paper-based visual analog scale (pVAS) method for the measurement of pain in patients with patellofemoral pain syndrome (PFPS). DESIGN: Descriptive laboratory study. SETTING: Biomechanics laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-six runners diagnosed with PFPS. INTERVENTIONS: A cVAS system was custom-coded for this study. Participants completed both the cVAS survey and a pVAS survey that measured usual knee pain during running, walking, prolonged sitting, stair ascent, stair descent, and squatting movements. Thus, 216 paired measurements were made in total. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pearson correlation coefficients and slopes of the line of best fit were calculated to assess the relationship between cVAS and pVAS scores, and Bland-Altman plots were constructed to determine cVAS agreement to pVAS scores. RESULTS: All cVAS measures were highly correlated to pVAS scores (all r values were >0.9), and slopes were always near 1.0. Bland-Altman plots demonstrated that there was good agreement between the 2 methods. CONCLUSIONS: The cVAS system that was developed is a valid method for measurement of pain in patients with PFPS. Further use of the cVAS for studies involving PFPS is supported.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| 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".