Validity and Utility of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure as an Outcome Measure in a Craniofacial Pain Center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Temporomandibular disorders and orofacial pain may cause impairment and functional limitations in activities involving the face, especially the mouth. The impact of chronic pain on occupational performance in this population has not been studied. The validity and utility of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) as an outcome measure in an orofacial pain setting was assessed, including specific occupational performance problems reported by individuals with temporomandibular disorder, orofacial pain, or both. Participants were patients ( N = 29) referred for treatment of chronic orofacial pain at a tertiary, university-based pain center. Assessments occurred prior to standard occlusal splint therapy and 8 weeks after the initial evaluation. Measures included the COPM, the Pain Disability Index, and numerical pain rating scales. The COPM scores showed significant correlations with other measures. Study participants identified a diverse range of occupational performance problems. The COPM may have utility as an outcome measure for use in orofacial pain. It provides the treatment team with data related to occupational performance and patient satisfaction.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".