Pain Assessment in Patients with Possible Vascular Dementia
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
PREVIOUS studies comparing Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients with the normal elderly suggest that AD patients experience less pain. In the present study, pain reporting in 20 patients with possible vascular dementia (VaD) was compared to 20 nondemented elderly who had comparable pain conditions. It was hypothesized that, due to de-afferentiation, the possible VaD patients would experience more pain than the cognitively intact elderly. Pain assessment was conducted using three visual analogue scales, (1) the Coloured Analogue Scale (CAS) for Pain Intensity, (2) the CAS for Pain Affect, and (3) the Faces Pain Scale (FPS); a verbal pain questionnaire, Number of Words Chosen--Affective (NWC-A) of the McGill Pain Questionnaire; and an observation scale, the Checklist of Nonverbal Pain Indicators (CNPI). Results showed a significant increase in the scores on the CAS for Pain Affect and the FPS in the demented patients compared to the control group. There was a tendency for an increase in scores on the CNPI in the VaD group. These results suggest that patients with possible VaD suffer more pain than healthy elderly without cognitive impairment.
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 | 0.001 | 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