Word Choices of Advanced Cancer Patients: Frequency of Nociceptive and Neuropathic Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine if nociceptive and/or neuropathic pain in advanced cancer patients could be identified by word selections made on the McGill Melzack Pain Questionnaire. Theoretical definitions for nociceptive and neuropathic pain provided a framework for categorizing the word descriptors in the McGill Melzack Pain Questionnaire's sensory and miscellaneous dimensions. A description study design was used to group word frequencies by primary site and pain type. The participants were 76 advanced cancer patients who received home-based hospice services. A wide range of word choices for lung cancer patients supported both nociceptive and neuropathic pain. Individuals with colon and liver cancer selected words that described 2 types of nociceptive (visceral, somatic) pain, while those with prostate cancer noted somatic pain. A set frequency was not reached by individuals with breast, pancreatic, gastric, and other advanced cancers. This study provided evidence that advanced cancer patients select words that describe nociceptive and neuropathic pain types.
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 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".