Effect of a pain diary use on recovery from acute whiplash injury: a cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previously, it was shown that the use of a symptom diary for two weeks, even in generally healthy subjects, results in increased recall of daily symptoms and increased perception of symptom severity (Ferrari and Russell, 2010). In that study, generally healthy female subjects were asked to recall symptoms experienced in the previous two weeks, after keeping a symptom diary for two weeks, while a control group was asked to recall symptoms experienced in the previous two weeks without having kept a symptom diary. While both groups had initially similar recall of their symptoms prior to the study interventions, the diary group subsequently experienced symptom amplification. That is, after 14 d of symptom diary use, the diary group recalled having symptoms on average (2.6±0.7) d in the last 14 d, with an average intensity of symptoms at 5.1±1.3 out of severity 10. This was nearly double their baseline measures. The control group experienced no statistically significant change in average number of days of recalled symptoms in the prior 14 d or in average recalled intensity of symptoms experienced in the last 14 d.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".