MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2931388873 · doi:10.3899/jrheum.181099

Pain Measurement in Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases: Where To Go from Here? Report from a Special Interest Group at OMERACT 2018

2019· article· en· W2931388873 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
Alessandro Chiarotto, Ulrike Kaiser, Ernest Choy, Robin Christensen, Philip G. Conaghan, Mary Cowern, Michael Gill, Maarten de Wit, Elizabeth Gargon, Ben Horgan, Jamie J Kirkham, Lee S. Simon, Jasvinder A. Singh, Peter Tugwell, Dennis C. Turk, Philip J. Mease

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rheumatology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDelphi Technique in Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersLeeds Biomedical Research CentreDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of WashingtonNational Institutes of HealthVersus ArthritisAmsterdam University Medical CentersEuropean League Against RheumatismUniversity of WashingtonVrije Universiteit AmsterdamUniversity of LeedsNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchParker Institute for Cancer ImmunotherapyU.S. Food and Drug AdministrationHealth and Care Research WalesOttawa Hospital Research InstituteUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsMedicinePhysical therapyFamily medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Establishing a research agenda on standardizing pain measurement in clinical trials in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMD). METHODS: Discussion during a meeting at the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) 2018, prepared by a systematic review of existing core outcome sets and a patient online survey. RESULTS: Several key questions were debated: Is pain a symptom or a disease? Are pain core (sub)domains consistent across RMD? How to account for pain mechanistic descriptors (e.g., central sensitization) in pain measurement? CONCLUSION: Characterizing and assessing the spectrum of pain experience across RMD in a standardized fashion is the objective of the OMERACT Pain Working Group.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.210
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of RheumatologySame topicDelphi Technique in ResearchFrench-language works237,207