MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2965936618 · doi:10.3389/fvets.2019.00274

Development, Preliminary Validation, and Refinement of the Composite Oral and Maxillofacial Pain Scale-Canine/Feline (COPS-C/F)

2019· article· en· W2965936618 on OpenAlexaff
Giorgia Della Rocca, Alessandra Di Salvo, Maria Luisa Marenzoni, Enrico Bellezza, Giovanni Pastorino, Beatriz P. Monteiro, Paulo V. Steagall

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Veterinary Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicVeterinary Orthopedics and Neurology
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersUniversity of Bristol
KeywordsCronbach's alphaVisual analogue scaleConstruct validityMedicineCriterion validityWilcoxon signed-rank testPhysical therapyContent validityRating scaleScale (ratio)PsychologyDentistryPsychometricsClinical psychologyInternal medicineMann–Whitney U testDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: Oral pain is underrecognized and undertreated in small animal practice. This study aimed to develop and perform a preliminary validation of an instrument to evaluate oral and maxil-lofacial pain in dogs and cats. Methods: Indicators potentially associated with oral pain in dogs and cats were identified and selected. The Composite Oral Pain Scale – Canine/Feline (COPS-C/F) in the Italian language was developed using a two-part questionnaire (owner and veterinary specific questionnaires). The instrument was used to score the intensity of oral and maxillofacial pain in patients with oral disease. Content validity was performed and the COPS-C/F was applied to 20 dogs and 16 cats with oral disease at baseline and 15 days after dental treatment for construct validity. Criterion validity was assessed by comparing the COPS-C/F with a visual analog scale (VAS), a numeric rating scale (NRS) and a simple descriptive scale (SDS). Construct validity/responsiveness and criterion validity were assessed with Wilcoxon and Spearman Pearson tests, respectively (p ≤ 0.05). The Cronbach's alpha coefficient was used to calculate internal consistency. Thereafter, the instrument was refined and translated to English and back-translated for semantic equivalence. Results: Construct validity was confirmed with a significant reduction of pain scores after treatment (p < 0.05) for most items. Criterion validity was confirmed by a significant correlation among the COPS-C/F total pain scores and those from VAS, NRS and SDS (p < 0.05). Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.876 and 0.860 for the owner and the veterinary specific questionnaires, respectively indicating good internal consistency. The items that did not present significant differences between time-points and the VAS, NRS and SDS were removed prior to translation to English (COPS-C/F ENG). Conclusions and Clinical Relevance: The study described the development and preliminary validation of the COPS-C/F as an instrument for pain assessment in dogs and cats. Refinement and back-translation of COPS-C/F with semantic equivalency resulted in the COPS-C/F ENG consisting of 6 and 4 items for the owner and veterinary specific questionnaires, respectively. The English version requires further validation and testing using a larger number of patients in the clinical setting.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.334
Threshold uncertainty score0.734

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.247 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations9
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Veterinary ScienceSame topicVeterinary Orthopedics and NeurologyFrench-language works237,207