Pain Expressions in Dementia: Validity of Observers’ Pain Judgments as a Function of Angle of Observation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Facial expressions of pain are important in assessing individuals with dementia and severe communicative limitations. Though frontal views of the face are assumed to allow for the most valid and reliable observational assessments, the impact of viewing angle is unknown. We video-recorded older adults with and without dementia using cameras capturing different observational angles (e.g., front vs. profile view) both during a physiotherapy examination designed to identify painful areas and during a baseline period. Facial responses were coded using the fine-grained Facial Action Coding System, as well as a systematic clinical observation method. Coding was conducted separately for panoramic (incorporating left, right, and front views), and a profile view of the face. Untrained observers also judged the videos in a laboratory setting. Trained coder reliability was satisfactory for both the profile and panoramic view. Untrained observer judgments from a profile view were substantially more accurate compared to the front view and accounted for more variance in differentiating non-painful from painful situations. The findings add specificity to the communications models of pain (clarifying factors influencing observers' ability to decode pain messages). Perhaps more importantly, the findings have implications for the development of computer vision algorithms and vision technologies designed to monitor and interpret facial expressions in a pain context. That is, the performance of such automated systems is heavily influenced by how reliably these human annotations could be provided and, hence, evaluation of human observers' reliability, from multiple angles of observation, has implications for machine learning development efforts.
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 | 0.014 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".