MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Guidance for the assessment of pain in older adults: a literature review

2008· review· en· W2093563288 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

VenueBritish Journal of Nursing · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Management and Opioid Use
Canadian institutionsRoyal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPain managementPain assessmentMedicineOlder peopleHealth professionalsAcute painNursingPhysical therapyPsychologyGerontologyHealth carePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents guidance for the assessment of pain in older adults, which was developed as a collaborative project by the British Pain Society and the British Geriatric Society. The guidance was published in November 2007 and was designed to provide health professionals with practical skills to assess pain as the first step towards its effective management. The guidance did not seek to differentiate between acute and persistent pain as the literature relating to pain in older people renders such distinction impractical. The next stage will involve the development of guidance for the management of pain in older adults, which will commence this year.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.845
Threshold uncertainty score0.626

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.350 · 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