Pain expression in mild cognitive impairment: Its relation to frontal lobe involvement in non-verbal pain expression.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Purpose: Pain is prevalent and often undertreated in elderly individuals suffering from cognitive impairments. Interestingly, such individuals may actually show an increase in facial expressions of pain. The reasons for this are unclear, but may possibly relate to disinhibition due to frontal lobe impairment. It was hypothesized that elderly individuals who suffer from mild cognitive impairments (MCI) would display higher levels of pain expression than normal controls, particularly if they have deficits in frontal lobe functioning. Methods: A sample of elderly individuals were recruited from the community and labeled as MCI' if they scored <26 on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Task (MoCA). A comparison sample (control group) consisted of individuals scoring '~\u202226 on this test. Facial expressions were videotaped and then rated and scored for pain intensity at the time of an influenza vaccination and participants were subsequently questioned regarding their subjective experience of the painful stimulus. They also underwent neuropsychological testing of frontal lobe functions (in particular, executive functioning) including the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST), Stroop Test, and verbal fluency testing. Social inhibition was assessed through a self-disclosure interview. Results: There were 58 participants ranging in age from 56 to 92 yrs (M=69.7 SD=8.3). Of this group, 34 met criteria for MCI based on MoCA scores (i.e., MCI group) while 24 did not (control group). There were no significant differences between the two groups with respect to facial expressions of pain, subjective reports of pain, nor social inhibition scores. While executive functioning was relatively impaired in the MCI group, the degree of impairment did not correlate with facial expressions of pain not with social inhibition scores. Conclusion: Contrary to expectations, no significant differences were found between participants identified as having MCI and normal controls in their facial expressions of pain post-im
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".