Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this descriptive study was to provide a description of advanced cancer pain in home hospice subjects. The McGill Pain Questionnaire, Parts 1 and 2, measured pain in a convenience sample of 76 patients who were terminally ill with cancer. Analysis of the McGill Pain Questionnaire Part 1 delineated the following mean scores: total score (11.24), number of words chosen (5.89), sensory (5.71), affective (3.07), evaluative (1.09), and miscellaneous (1.96). The Present Pain Intensity Scale revealed a mean of (1.66) for Part 2. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze choices from the 78 possible word selections that categorize the four dimensions of the McGill Pain Questionnaire: sensory, affective, evaluative, and miscellaneous. Subjects selected 444 words from these four pain components, and their rank order from the highest to the lowest numbers were sensory (227), affective (90), miscellaneous (75), and evaluative (52). Although a mean Present Pain Intensity score of 1.66 demonstrated good pain management, patients with advanced cancer in home hospice care chose words that described four main pain patterns: "tiring and exhausting" (11.5%), "troublesome and annoying" (8.8%), "dull and aching" (7.7%), and "nauseating and sickening" (6.8%).
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 | 0.000 | 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".