Allodynography: Reliability of a New Procedure for Objective Clinical Examination of Static Mechanical Allodynia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: There is a need for reliable and valid clinical assessment tools for quantifying allodynia in neuropathic pain. Allodynography has been proposed as a useful standardized procedure for clinical assessment of mechanical allodynia. This study (www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT02070367) undertook preliminary investigation of the measurement properties of allodynography, a new standardized clinical examination procedure for mapping the area of cutaneous allodynia. METHODS: Persons with pain in one upper extremity after complex regional pain syndrome, a peripheral nerve injury, or who had recently experienced a hand fracture were recruited for assessment of static mechanical allodynia (based on perception of a 15g force stimulus delivered by Semmes-Weinstein monofilament #5.18 as painful) by two raters at baseline; the assessment was repeated one week later. RESULTS: Single-measures estimates suggested inter-rater reliability for allodynography was excellent at an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.97 (N = 12); test-retest reliability was also excellent at ICC = 0.89 (N = 10) for allodynography (P < 0.001 for both). Confidence intervals' lower bounds confirm inter-rater reliability as excellent (0.90) but were less definitive for test-retest (0.59). CONCLUSIONS: This preliminary study supports the inter-rater and test-retest reliability of allodynography. Studies on larger samples in multiple contexts and reporting other measurement properties are warranted.
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 | 0.006 | 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".