Revisions to the IASP definition of pain—What does this mean for children?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The complexity of the phenomenon of pain defies a simple and straightforward definition. Acute, chronic, nociplastic and neuropathic pain account for multiple pathologic mechanisms and forms of expression. Pain varies widely in intensity, duration and nature, often complicating description for those who are experiencing the pain and/ or those who are observing it. Assessment of pain in children can be challenging, especially in those who may be incapable of self‐report report due to development immaturity or disability. In these children the responsibility of assessing pain often falls to the professional or lay care provider, whose knowledge, expertise and beliefs influence their judgements. The experience of pain includes not only the physiologic and behavioural indicators most frequently included in pain assessment measures but also encompasses the social and cognitive components that often go unrecognized. The 1979 IASP definition of pain has been praised for its brevity, simplicity and attention to the multidimensional nature of the phenomenon. It has also been criticized for ignoring mind‐body interactions, disempowering and neglecting vulnerable populations, paying little attention to ethical dimensions, and excluding cognitive and social factors that are integral to the experience of pain. After four decades, the 1979 definition of pain and the accompanying notes were evaluated and revised by a 14‐member IASP presidential task force with representation from basic and clinical research, geographical location and populations served (Pain, 2020, 161, 1976). These revisions resulted in decreasing the emphasis of pain associated with tissue damage in the definition, and, by removing the word ‘described’, allowing those who were nonverbal to be assessed using other validated pain indicators. Important revisions were also made to the Notes. The revisions that are most relevant for pain in children are discussed.
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 | 0.025 | 0.087 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".