MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2922650894 · doi:10.1177/0193945919836446

Neuropathic Pain Screening: Construct Validity in Patients With Sickle Cell Disease

2019· article· en· W2922650894 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Keesha Powell-Roach, Yingwei Yao, Miriam O. Ezenwa, Judith M. Schlaeger, Marie L. Suarez, Robert E. Molokie, Zaijie Jim Wang, Diana J. Wilkie

Bibliographic record

VenueWestern Journal of Nursing Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological and metabolic disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on AgingNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteRobert Wood Johnson Foundation
KeywordsNeuropathic painConstruct validityMedicineConstruct (python library)DiseaseIntensive care medicinePsychometricsClinical psychologyAnesthesiaInternal medicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Individuals with pain from sickle cell disease (SCD) are often treated for nociceptive pain, but recent findings indicate they may also have neuropathic pain. PAIN ReportIt, a computerized version of the McGill Pain Questionnaire, provides a potential subscale that is the summed number of selected neuropathic pain quality words (PR-NNP), but it lacks construct validity. The study purpose was to ascertain PR-NNP construct validity in adults with SCD and chronic pain. In an outpatient setting, 186 participants completed the PAIN ReportIt, Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI), and Leeds Assessment for Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (S-LANSS). PR-NNP was moderately correlated with NPSI ( r = .33, p < .001) and S-LANSS ( r = .40, p < .001). Regression analysis indicated that PR-NNP and pain intensity, but not a nociceptive pain subscale, were significant predictors of NPSI and S-LANSS. Findings support construct validity of PR-NNP, which may be useful as a screening tool for neuropathic pain in patients with SCD.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.075
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWestern Journal of Nursing ResearchSame topicNeurological and metabolic disordersFrench-language works237,207