Clinical Significance and Diagnostic Value of Pain Extent Extracted from Pain Drawings: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current scoping review aimed to map current literature investigating the relationship between pain extent extracted from pain drawings with clinical, psychological, and psycho-physiological patient-reported outcome measures in people with pain. Electronic databases were searched for cross-sectional cohort studies that collected pain drawings using digital technology or a pen-on-paper approach and assessed for correlations between pain extent and clinical, psychological or psycho-physical outcomes. Data were extracted by two different reviewers. The methodological quality of studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. Mapping of the results included: 1, description of included studies; 2, summary of results; and 3, identification of gaps in the existing literature. Eleven cross-sectional cohort studies were included. The pain disorders considered were heterogeneous, ranging from musculoskeletal to neuropathic conditions, and from localized to generalized pain conditions. All studies included pain and/or pain-related disability as clinical outcomes. Psychological outcomes included depression and anxiety, kinesiophobia and catastrophism. Psycho-physical measures included pressure or thermal pain thresholds. Ten studies were considered of high methodological quality. There was heterogeneity in the associations between pain extent and patient-reported outcome measures depending on the pain condition. This scoping review found that pain extent is associated with patient-reported outcome measures more so in patients presenting with musculoskeletal pain, e.g., neck pain or osteoarthritis, rather than for those with neuropathic pain or headache.
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 | 0.027 | 0.147 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.036 | 0.027 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".