A Cross-sectional Feasibility Study Testing the Use of Abstract Animations for the Communication and Assessment of Pain (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Pain is the most common medical symptom requiring care, yet the current methods for assessing pain are sorely inadequate. Pain assessment tools either take too long to complete for point of care use or are too simplistic to capture the dynamic pain experience. OBJECTIVE To address this, we developed Painimation, a novel tool that uses graphic visualizations and animations instead of words or numeric scales to assess pain quality, intensity, and course. This study examines the utility of abstract animations as a measure of pain. METHODS Painimation was evaluated in a chronic pain medicine clinic. Eligible patients were receiving treatment for pain and reported pain more days than not for at least 3 months. Using a tablet computer, participating patients completed the Painimation instrument, the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), and the PainDETECT questionnaire for neuropathic symptoms. RESULTS Participants (N = 207), completed Painimation and indicated it was useful for describing their pain (mean=4.04/5 on a usefulness scale), and 154 out of 196 participants (79%) agreed or strongly agreed that they would use Painimation to communicate with their providers. Animations selected corresponded with pain adjectives endorsed on the MPQ. Further, selection of the electrifying animation was associated with self-reported neuropathic pain (r=.16, P=.03), similar to the association between neuropathic pain and PainDETECT (r=.17, P=.03). Painimation was associated with PainDETECT (r=.35, P<.001). CONCLUSIONS Using animations may be a faster and more patient-centered method for assessing pain and is not limited by age, literacy level, or language; however, more data are needed to assess the validity of this approach. Painimation needs testing in a more homogenous pain population to validate animations as a pain assessment method.
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 | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".