MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139396608 · doi:10.3899/jrheum.141328

Is Chronic Pain a Disease in Its Own Right? Discussions from a Pre-OMERACT 2014 Workshop on Chronic Pain

2015· article· en· W2139396608 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Ann Taylor, Kristine Phillips, Justin Taylor, Jasvinder A. Singh, Philip G. Conaghan, Ernest Choy, Peter Tugwell, Ulrike Kaiser, Vibeke Strand, Lee S. Simon, Philip J. Mease

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rheumatology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersDaiichi Sankyo EuropeNational Cancer InstituteNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin DiseasesMedical Research CouncilBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungEli Lilly and CompanyAstraZenecaAllerganU.S. Department of Veterans AffairsPatient-Centered Outcomes Research InstituteChugai PharmaceuticalAmgenNational Institute for Social Care and Health ResearchAbbott LaboratoriesRegeneron Pharmaceuticals
KeywordsMedicineRheumatologyPhysical therapyChronic painOutcome (game theory)DiseaseChronic diseaseAlternative medicineInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At the pain workshop held prior to the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) 12 conference, chronic nonmalignant pain (CP) as a "disease" was discussed, in response to growing interest in this concept and in terms of the effect on the OMERACT Filter 2.0 framework. CP is often assessed as a unidimensional outcome measure; however, if CP is a disease, then outcome measures need to define the disease state and identify all its manifestations as well as its effects, as specified by Filter 2.0. The aim was to write a discussion piece, reflecting the workshop contributions and debate, as an important step in opening a dialogue around future OMERACT Filter 2.0 Framework developments.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.130
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.117
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.130
Threshold uncertainty score0.688

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1300.117
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0140.015
Scholarly communication0.0170.016
Open science0.0040.018
Research integrity0.0230.062
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of RheumatologySame topicFibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome ResearchFrench-language works237,207