MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106043670 · doi:10.1016/j.pain.2008.04.010

The structure, reliability and validity of pain expression: Evidence from patients with shoulder pain

2008· article· en· W2106043670 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

VenuePain · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFacial expressionFacial Action Coding SystemPsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyReliability (semiconductor)Expression (computer science)MedicineCommunicationComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study examined psychometric properties of facial expressions of pain. A diverse sample of 129 people suffering from shoulder pain underwent a battery of active and passive range-of-motion tests to their affected and unaffected limbs. The same tests were repeated on a second occasion. Participants rated the maximum pain induced by each test on three self-report scales. Facial actions were measured with the Facial Action Coding System. Several facial actions discriminated painful from non-painful movements; however, brow-lowering, orbit tightening, levator contraction and eye closing appeared to constitute a distinct, unitary action. An index of pain expression based on these actions demonstrated test-retest reliability and concurrent validity with self-reports of pain. The findings support the concept of a core pain expression with desirable psychometric properties. They are also consistent with the suggestion of individual differences in pain expressiveness. Reasons for varying reports of relations between pain expression and self-reports in previous studies are discussed.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.247 · 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