Pain in communication impaired residents with dementia: Analysis of Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Pain has been identified as a significant and under-reported problem in the older adult and those persons with dementia who may face an impaired ability to communicate that they are in pain. Their pain, under-diagnosed and under-treated, has functional implications, such as decreased ambulation, mood and sleep disturbances, impaired appetite and exacerbation of cognitive functioning. Methods: Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) data were analyzed in order to 1) identify a pain profile of all of the residents living in the facility across two sampling periods (December 2005 and December 2006) and 2) compare the pain profile of residents categorized into two subgroups (intact communication/impaired communication). Findings: Consistent with the literature, clear differences were demonstrated between pain reporting and management for communication impaired residents with dementia and residents with intact communication. Several incongruent findings were also demonstrated. Conclusions: The RAI is useful to identify patterns but insufficient in itself for pain management purposes in this vulnerable group. Pain assessment tools developed for this population must be employed.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".