A Comparison of Observers' and Self-Report Pain Ratings for Children With Cerebral Palsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to examine (1) the relationship between children's self-reports of pain and their different care providers' pain ratings, (2) the relationship between different care providers' ratings of pain in children with cerebral palsy (CP), and (3) whether the child's level of disability influences care providers' pain ratings. METHODS: Sixty-three children with CP were separated into 2 groups according to whether they were able to pass a self-report training task. Pain was rated using a Numerical Rating Scale and the Non-Communicating Children's Pain Checklist-Postoperative Version (NCCPC-PV). Children were observed during their regular physiotherapy sessions at 3 separate time segments (Baseline, Stretch Procedure, and Recovery). RESULTS: As anticipated, results showed that all observers reported significantly higher pain scores during a physiotherapy stretching procedure than the baseline and recovery segments. Observers' NCCPC-PV scores were significantly higher during the stretch procedure for the children who did not pass the self-report training task. Findings also indicated that parents tended to report significantly lower pain scores compared with both their children and other observers. CONCLUSIONS: The findings bring into question the accuracy of single-observer pain ratings for children with CP and possess implications for the management of pain in children with CP.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".