Self-reported and Parent-reported Pain for Common Painful Events in High-functioning Children and Adolescents With Autism Spectrum Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Previous research suggests that children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) are at a higher risk for painful experiences, but there is limited research examining pain in children with ASD. METHODS: The current study examined self-reported and parent-reported pain in 20 high-functioning youth with ASD (17 boys; 3 girls) and 20 typically developing controls (16 boys; 4 girls) ranging in age from 9 to 18 years and matched on age and IQ. Participants with and without ASD rated their hypothetical pain in a series of pictures depicting common childhood situations. They also rated the amount of pain they would expect to feel (using the Faces Pain Scale-Revised and a Numeric Rating Scale) in a series of validated hypothetical pain situations depicted in cartooned images (eg, scraping knee on sidewalk). Parents rated the amount of pain they would expect their child to show in each of the same cartoon stimuli. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between pain vignette ratings of youth with ASD and their non-ASD peers or in the ratings provided by their parents. High-functioning youth with ASD were able to successfully use both of the self-report scales to rate pain. DISCUSSION: This is the first study to successfully obtain self-report of pain from youth with ASD. Implications for the understanding of pain and pain assessment in high-functioning youth with ASD are discussed.
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 | 0.017 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".