Pain in children and adolescents with spina bifida
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Pediatric Pain Questionnaire and relevant medical records were used to investigate the frequency, intensity, location, and duration of pain experienced by children with spina bifida and to examine the concordance between child self-report and parent proxy report of pain. There were 68 children with spina bifida (30 males, 38 females) between the ages of 8 and 19 years (mean age 12y 8m). Fifty-nine children (87%) were diagnosed with myelomeningocele, six (9%) with lipomyelomeningocele, and three (4%) with lipomeningocele (4%). Forty-nine children (72%) had shunted hydrocephalus. Twenty-six children (38%) ambulated full-time. Fifty-six per cent of children reported experiencing pain once a week or more often. For these children, pain occurred most frequently in the head, back, abdomen, neck, shoulders, legs, and hands. Of the 49 children with shunted hydrocephalus, 43 (88%) reported headaches; 15 of 19 children (79%) without hydrocephalus reported headaches. Children who reported more intense pain also reported more frequent pain and more pain locations. Parents were most reliable at reporting locations of their children's severe pain. Parents of younger children significantly underestimated their children's current pain and worst pain in the past 7 days. Lesion level and ambulatory status were not associated with any of the pain variables. It was concluded that children with spina bifida frequently report clinically significant, yet under-recognized and untreated pain.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".