Pain in children with cerebral palsy: common triggers and expressive behaviors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To obtain parents' identification and description of the behaviors, health care procedures and daily living situations associated with pain in children with cerebral palsy (CP), surveys were sent to parents of children with CP recruited via a clinic case list and a parents' newsletter. Forty-three parents completed the survey. Results indicated that children's ability to communicate pain verbally did not influence whether or not their parent reported observing pain. Most children (67%) were reported to have displayed pain within the month prior to rating. All pain behaviors on the Non-Communicating Children's Pain Checklist (Dev Med Child Neurol 40 (1998) 340) were endorsed by some parents, and few additional pain behaviors were identified, suggesting that this instrument adequately samples the pain behavior of children with CP. Assisted stretching was the daily living activity most frequently identified as painful by parents (93% of those reporting pain), and the one with the highest mean pain intensity. Needle injection (40%) was the medical and nursing procedure most frequently identified by parents as painful for their children. Range of motion manipulation was the therapy most frequently identified as painful by parents (58%), and the one with the highest mean intensity. Parents are able to observe pain in their children with CP regardless of the child's verbal fluency. Knowledge of behaviors and painful situations identified by parents can facilitate management of pain in children with CP.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".