A Psychophysical Investigation of the Facial Action Coding System as an Index of Pain Variability among Older Adults with and without Alzheimer's Disease
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: Reflexive responses to pain such as facial reactions become increasingly important for pain assessment among patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) because self-report capabilities diminish as cognitive abilities decline. Our goal was to study facial expressions of pain in patients with and without AD. DESIGN: We employed a quasi-experimental design and used the Facial Action Coding System (FACS) to assess reflexive facial responses to noxious stimuli of varied intensity. Two different modalities of stimulation (mechanical and electrical) were employed. RESULTS: The FACS identified differences in facial expression as a function of level of discomforting stimulation. As expected, there were no significant differences based on disease status (AD vs control group). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to discriminate among FACS measures collected during innocuous and graded levels of precisely measured painful stimuli in seniors with (mild) dementia and in healthy control group participants. We conclude that, as hypothesized, FACS can be used for the assessment of evoked pain, regardless of the presence of AD.
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 | 0.004 | 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 it