Online Psychological Treatment for Pediatric Recurrent Pain: A Randomized Evaluation
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of a distance treatment delivered through Internet and telephone for pediatric recurrent pain. METHODS: Forty-seven participants (9-16 years of age) were randomly assigned to either an Internet-based treatment or a standard medical care waitlist. Treatment employed a Web-based manual for children and parents with weekly therapist contact by telephone or e-mail. At 1- and 3-month follow-ups, participants were assessed on the outcome variables of pain and quality of life. A 50% reduction in diary pain scores was considered clinically significant. RESULTS: Significant between-group differences were found: 71 and 72% of the treatment group achieved clinically significant improvement at the 1- and 3-month follow-ups, respectively, whereas only 19 and 14% of the control group achieved the criterion. No significant differences were found on the quality of life variable. CONCLUSIONS: Distance methods have considerable potential for making effective treatments more accessible with lower associated costs.
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 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 | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it