Validité et utilité clinique d'une grille d'observation (PACSLAC-F) pour évaluer la douleur chez des aînés atteints de démence vivant en milieu de soins de longue durée
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This study presents the validation of the French Canadian version (PACLSAC-F) of the Pain Assessment Checklist for Seniors with Limited Ability to Communicate (PACSLAC). Unlike the published validation of the English version of the PACSLAC, which was validated retrospectively, the French version was validated prospectively. The PACSLAC-F was completed by nurses working in long-term care facilities after observing 86 seniors, with severe cognitive impairment, in calm, painful or distressing but non-painful situations. The test-retest and inter-observer reliability, the internal consistency, and the discriminent validity were found to be satisfactory. To evaluate the convergent validity with the DOLOPLUS-2 and the clinical relevance of the PACSLAC, it was also completed by nurses during their work shift, with 26 additional patients, for three days per week during a period of four weeks. These results encourage us to test the PACSLAC in a comprehensive program of pain management targeting this population.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".