MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3138999099 · doi:10.1080/09540121.2021.1902936

The Global Task Force for Chronic Pain in People with HIV (PWH): Developing a research agenda in an emerging field

2021· article· en· W3138999099 on OpenAlexaff
Jessica S. Merlin, Megan Hamm, Flor de Abril Cameron, Venetia Baker, Darren A. Brown, Catherine L. Cherry, E. Jennifer Edelman, Michael Evangeli, Richard Harding, Jo Josh, Harriet Kemp, Claire Lichius, Victoria J. Madden, Kennedy Nkhoma, Kelly K. O’Brien, Romy Parker, Andrew S.C. Rice, Jessica Robinson‐Papp, Caroline Sabin, Deepika E. Slawek, Whitney Scott, Judith I. Tsui, Lisa A. Uebelacker, Antonia Wadley, Burel R. Goodin

Bibliographic record

VenueAIDS Care · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmacological Effects and Toxicity Studies
Canadian institutionsToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesFogarty International CenterNational Institutes of HealthNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsSnowball samplingChronic painBrainstormingStandardizationTask forceTask (project management)MedicineHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)PsychologyFibromyalgiaRepresentativeness heuristicPhysical therapyFamily medicineComputer sciencePolitical scienceSocial psychologyEngineeringPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chronic pain is a common comorbidity in people with HIV (PWH), with prevalence estimates of 25-85%. Research in this area is growing, but significant gaps remain. A Global Task Force of HIV experts was organized to brainstorm a scientific agenda and identify measurement domains critical to advancing research in this field. Experts were identified through literature searches and snowball sampling. Two online questionnaires were developed by Task Force members. Questionnaire 1 asked participants to identify knowledge gaps in the field of HIV and chronic pain and identify measurement domains in studies of chronic pain in PWH. Responses were ranked in order of importance in Questionnaire 2, which was followed by a group discussion. 29 experts completed Questionnaire 1, 25 completed Questionnaire 2, and 21 participated in the group. Many important clinical and research priorities emerged, including the need to examine etiologies of chronic pain in PWH. Pain-related measurement domains were discussed, with a primary focus on domains that could be assessed in a standardized manner across various cohorts that include PWH in different countries. We collaboratively identified clinical and research priorities, as well as gaps in standardization of measurement domains, that can be used to move the field forward.

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)0.001
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 score0.418
Threshold uncertainty score0.927

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.358 · 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

Citations24
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIDS CareSame topicPharmacological Effects and Toxicity StudiesFrench-language works237,207