The sensory pain of Dante's Inferno - Semantics of chronic pain in patients with narcolepsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the semantics of chronic pain in narcolepsy and to compare with the poem Inferno, from Dante Alighieri. METHODS: A cross-sectional study, in which type 1 (n=33) and type 2 (n=33) patients (hypocretin-1 quantification in cerebrospinal fluid), were studied at Departamento de Psicobiologia - Universidade Federal de São Paulo (Brazil). We assessed pain descriptors in the Present Rating Index (PRI) from McGill Pain Questionnaire. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in PRI between narcolepsy groups. In both groups, the most frequent words had a sensory dimension: throbbing, jumping, and tugging. Multiple correspondence analysis revealed the predominance of sensory descriptors and the deficiency of affective descriptors in these groups. DISCUSSION: A study that interpreted the poem Inferno, from Dante Alighieri, as McGill Pain Questionnaires descriptors suggested a contribution of the sensory dimension in pain of possibly narcolepsy patients, similar as in our results.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".