MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Anxiety and Pain Severity in Children Based on Self-Report

2021· article· en· W3139212956 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Maryam Mirmotalebi, Behshid Garrusi, Mina Danaei

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Child Health and Nutrition · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKerman University of Medical Sciences
KeywordsFLACC scaleMedicineVisual analogue scaleAnxietyPhysical therapyPain assessmentCross-sectional studyPain managementPostoperative painAnesthesiaPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and Objective: Evaluation of the severity of pain in children can help the medical team diagnose the type of disease. In this study, anxiety and pain intensity in children were examined based on self-report. Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional study was performed in 2018 on 300 children aged 3 to 12 years, referring to outpatient treatment centres in Kerman. To measure the severity of pain felt by children, FPS-R was used. The level declared by children was evaluated by the pain intensity estimated by parents and doctors using a visual analogue scale (VAS) and the standard FLACC (Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability scale) for correlation. The data were analysed using SPSS software version 25. Results: The pain reported by children was obtained by VAS (4.16 ± 3.49), and the estimated pain by the doctor was obtained by FPS-R (2.87±1.68). The pain severity estimated by the doctor using FLACC had the highest correlation with the pain estimated by the doctor using VAS and the lowest correlation with the pain estimated by the mother using VAS. Conclusion: The results of this study showed that FPS-R could be used as a suitable self-report tool in children and, along with the standard FLACC, can help the medical team recognize the severity of children's pain.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Child Health and NutritionSame topicPediatric Pain Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207