Validation of the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool With Seriously Ill Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool is a behavioral scale recommended for pain assessment in nonverbal critically ill adults. Although the use of this tool was validated in various critical care patient groups, little is known about its validity of use in seriously ill patients at high risk of dying in the intensive care unit, which is the purpose of this study. A prospective cohort study with repeated-measure within-subject design was conducted in a Canadian intensive care unit. Two trained raters assessed the pain of 22 participants with the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool before, during, and 15 minutes after a nonnociceptive procedure (gentle touch) and a nociceptive procedure (turning). Interrater reliability and discriminant validation were examined. Intraclass correlation coefficients greater than 0.75 between the raters’ scores supported interrater reliability. Higher Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool scores were found during turning compared with gentle touch ( P < 0.01), demonstrating discriminant validation. The Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool seems to be valid, can be used consistently, and is able to discriminate painful from nonpainful conditions in the nonverbal critically ill adults at high risk of dying.
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 | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".