Pain-QuILT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate clinical feasibility of the Pain-QuILT (previously known as the Iconic Pain Assessment Tool) from the perspective of adolescents with chronic pain and members of their interdisciplinary health team. The Pain-QuILT (PQ), a web-based tool that records the visual self-report of sensory pain in the form of time-stamped records, was directly compared with standard interview questions that were transformed to a paper-based tool. METHODS: Qualitative, semi-structured interviews were used to refine the PQ. Adolescents with chronic pain aged 12 to 18 years used the PQ and comparator tool (randomized order) to self-report pain before a scheduled clinic appointment, and then took part in a semi-structured interview. The health team used these pain reports (PQ and comparator) during patient appointments, and later participated in focus group interviews. Interview audio recordings were transcribed verbatim and underwent a simple line-by-line content analysis to identify key concepts. RESULTS: A total of 17 adolescents and 9 health team members completed the study. All adolescents felt that the PQ was easy to use and understand. The median time required for completion of the PQ and comparator tool was 3.3 and 3.6 minutes, respectively. Overall, 15/17 (88%) of adolescents preferred the PQ to self-report their pain versus the comparator. The health team indicated that the PQ was a clinically useful tool and identified minor barriers to implementation. DISCUSSION: Consultations with adolescents and their health team indicate that the PQ is a clinically feasible tool for eliciting detailed self-report records of the sensory experience of chronic 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".