Pain among children and adults living with arthrogryposis multiplex congenita: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clinical interventions and research have mostly focused on the orthopedic and genetic outcomes of individuals with arthrogryposis multiplex congenita (AMC), and although pain has gained recognition as an important issue experienced by individuals with AMC, it has received little attention within the AMC literature. The aims of this scoping review were to describe the pain experiences of children and adults with AMC, to identify pain assessment tools and management techniques, and document the impact of pain on participation in everyday activities among children and adults with AMC. A search of the literature was conducted in four search engines and identified a total of 89 articles. Once study eligibility was reviewed, 21 studies met the selection criteria and were included in this review. Pain appears to be more commonly experienced in adults with AMC compared with children with AMC, with individuals having undergone multiple corrective procedures self-reporting pain more often. In adult populations, musculoskeletal chronic pain is a significant problem, resulting in restrictions in activities of daily living, mobility, and participation. Researchers and clinicians must agree on the use of validated measures appropriate for evaluating pain in AMC and the use of appropriate pain management techniques to relieve pain. Pediatric studies should focus on determining how commonly pain is experienced in infants, children, and adolescents with AMC. Pain in adults with AMC should be acknowledged to offer proper client-centered interventions throughout the lifespan.
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 | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".