MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Assessment of Clinically Significant Changes in Acute Pain in Children

2002· article· en· W2070618610 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Emergency Medicine · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Winnipeg
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEmergency departmentPain assessmentPain scaleIntervention (counseling)Physical therapyAcute painProspective cohort studyPediatricsPain managementAnesthesiaPsychiatrySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To quantify, using two pain assessment scales, the amount of change in pain severity required to achieve a clinically significant improvement in pain in children presenting to a pediatric emergency department (ED) with pain. METHODS: Prospective, descriptive study involving all children presenting to a pediatric ED between 5 and 16 years of age inclusive with acute pain. Children were excluded if they 1) were intoxicated or had altered sensorium, 2) were clinically unstable, 3) were non-English-speaking, or 4) were developmentally delayed. Written informed consent was obtained. Children were asked to mark their current pain severity on the standardized Color Analogue Scale (CAS) and Faces Pain Scale (FPS). After each pain control intervention the child was asked to repeat these measurements and to describe whether his or her pain was "much less," "a little less," "about the same," "a little worse," or "much worse" compared with before. This process was repeated until the child was discharged from the ED or had a score of zero. The main outcome measure was the smallest change on the CAS or FPS necessary to cause the child to describe his or her pain as a "little less." This was defined as the clinically significant change in pain. The "ideal" change in pain was defined as the amount of change necessary for the child to describe the pain as "much less" or at which point the child thought he or she no longer required any medicine to help the pain go away. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-one children were enrolled with a mean age of 9.8 years (SD +/- 3.15). Males accounted for 56%. Pain was traumatic in 65% and nontraumatic in 35%. A total of 153 pain comparisons were made using the CAS and 154 using the FPS. Only three children complained that their pain got worse (two a little worse and one much worse). Pain was described as "the same" in 20. Of the 60 pain comparisons judged to be a "little less," the CAS score changed by a median of 2.0 cm [interquartile ratio (IQR) 1-3], and the FPS by 1.0 face (IQR 1-2). In the 71 children who judged their pain to be "much less," the CAS decreased by a median of 4.0 cm (IQR 2-5) and the FPS by 2.0 faces (IQR 2-3). CONCLUSIONS: The assessment and treatment of pain in children are an important component of pediatric practice, especially in the ED. This study provides health care professionals and clinical investigators the information necessary to assess whether their method of pain control in children is clinically relevant.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.335 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it