The Gastrointestinal Pain Pointer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abdominal pain is a chronic condition experienced by approximately 20% of individuals in the United States. The purpose of the study was to assess the validity of the Gastrointestinal Pain Pointer as a measure of abdominal pain intensity. A prospective longitudinal time-series study design was utilized. The sample included 93 outpatients (58.1% female). Participants met Rome III criteria for irritable bowel syndrome (n = 32) or were healthy controls (n = 61). The Gastrointestinal Pain Pointer, a new electronic pain assessment tool, was used to assess self-reported abdominal pain intensity among participants before and after ingestion of an intestinal permeability test solution across 11 time points over a 5-hour time period. The results were compared with the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire. The Gastrointestinal Pain Pointer was found to be valid in the assessment of abdominal pain intensity. The tool is a novel and valid measure of abdominal pain intensity that enhances the ability for clinicians to better quantify, in real time, patient-related pain outcomes for both clinical care and research.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".