Pain in severe dementia: A comparison of a fine‐grained assessment approach to an observational checklist designed for clinical settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fine-grained observational approaches to pain assessment (e.g. the Facial Action Coding System; FACS) are used to evaluate pain in individuals with and without dementia. These approaches are difficult to utilize in clinical settings as they require specialized training and equipment. Easy-to-use observational approaches (e.g. the Pain Assessment Checklist for Limited Ability to Communicate-II; PACSLAC-II) have been developed for clinical settings. Our goal was to compare a FACS-based fine-grained system to the PACSLAC-II in differentiating painful from non-painful states in older adults with and without dementia. METHOD: We video-recorded older long-term care residents with dementia and older adult outpatients without dementia, during a quiet baseline condition and while they took part in a physiotherapy examination designed to identify painful areas. Videos were coded using pain-related behaviours from the FACS and the PACSLAC-II. RESULTS: Both tools differentiated between painful and non-painful states, but the PACSLAC-II accounted for more variance than the FACS-based approach. Participants with dementia scored higher on the PACSLAC-II than participants without dementia. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that easy-to-use observational approaches for clinical settings are valid and that there may not be any clinically important advantages to using more resource-intensive coding approaches based on FACS. We acknowledge, as a limitation of our study, that we used as baseline a quiet condition that did not involve significant patient movement. In contrast, our pain condition involved systematic patient movement. Future research should be aimed at replicating our results using a baseline condition that involves non-painful movements. SIGNIFICANCE: Examining older adults with and without dementia, a brief observational clinical approach was found to be valid and accounted for more variance in differentiating pain-related and non-pain-related states than did a detailed time-consuming fine-grained approach.
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 | 0.033 | 0.003 |
| 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".