Mild, Moderate, or Severe Pain Categorized by Patients with Cancer with Bone Metastases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine how patients categorize their pain with the two commonly employed scales. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with bone metastases referred to an outpatient palliative radiotherapy clinic were asked to rate their current pain on a numerical scale of 0-10 (0 = no pain, 10 = worst pain possible) and a categorized scale: none, mild, moderate and severe. RESULTS: Two hundred and seventeen patients were enrolled in the study. The median age was 66 years and median Karnofsky Performance Score was 70. The most common primary cancer sites were lung, prostate and breast. Based on patient-evaluated symptoms, 60% of patients who categorized pain as mild assigned it a 3 (24%) or 4 (36%), 63% who categorized pain as moderate assigned it a 5 (16.9%), 6 (19.1%) or 7 (27%) and 80% who categorized pain as severe assigned it an 8 (28.2%), 9 (12.6%) or 10 (39.8%). CONCLUSION: Our patients scored pain as mild if pain was < or =4, moderate if pain was 5-7 and severe if pain was > or =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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".