Assessing Individual Outcomes during Outpatient Multidisciplinary Chronic Pain Treatment by Means of an Augmented SF-36
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To meet the growing demand for objective outcomes measurement during treatment of chronic pain, we developed an instrument to track outcomes of individual patients. METHOD: In a 2-phase study, existing and novel outcomes instruments were applied in an interdisciplinary pain management program. In the initial phase, 408 patients were administered the Short Form 36-item questionnaire and during phase 2, 437 patients (87 of whom were followed) were given an expanded (191-item) questionnaire. RESULTS: When applied to individual patients, the Short Form 26-item questionnaire lacked measurement reliability for assessment of treatment outcomes and sensitivity to upper extremity or facial pathology, and failed to separate limitations of work versus everyday activity. A novel group of scales derived from responses to 61 questions, including the Short Form 36-item questionnaire, proved sufficiently reliable for routine follow-up of individual chronic pain patients. CONCLUSIONS: This new Treatment Outcomes in Pain Survey allows assessment of individual patient outcomes, and aggregate or individual clinician performance, during interdisciplinary treatment of chronic 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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 it