Validation of a revised version of the short-form Mc-Gill pain questionnaire (SF-MPQ-2) for IBS patients.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The aim of this study was the validation of the revised McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ-2) in patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Materials and Methods:Â A total of 107 (40 males, 67 females) IBS patients diagnosed according to Rome III criteria who referred to the Gastroenterology Clinic at Baqiyatallah Hospital in 1389 enrolled in this study. Â Enrolled patients completed a revised version of the short-form SF-MPQ-2 which had been translated into Farsi. To evaluate the validity of SF-MPQ-2 questionnaire, an exploratory factor analysis was performed. For assessment of reliability, we used Cronbach's alpha coefficient and the split-half method test. Results: Factor analysis denoted a three-factor model that included perceptions of pain sensation, emotional pain and neuropathic pain. The validity of the SF-MPQ-2 was satisfactory according to factor analysis. A comparison between patients with pain and those without pain provided evidence that supported the criterion validity of the questionnaire. Evidence was also adequate to support the content validity of the questionnaire as a measure of pain in IBS patients. The reliability of the scales was also acceptable. Conclusion:Â Â Â The findings showed acceptable reliability and validity for the revised version of the short-form SF-MPQ-2 in confirming the presence of IBS. Â
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 | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".