Pediatrics (79)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pain children: a common experience. (Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands) Pain 2000;87:51–57. This study analyzed the prevalence of pain in Dutch children from 0 to 18 years of age. A random sample of 1300 children 0–3 years of age was taken from the register of population in Rotterdam, The Netherlands. In the Rotterdam area, 27 primary schools and 14 secondary schools were selected to obtain a representative sample of 5336 children from 4–18 years of age. Depending on the age of the child, a questionnaire was either mailed to the parents (0–3 years) or distributed at school (4–18 years). Of 6636 children surveyed, 5424 (82%) responded; response rates ranged from 64% to 92%, depending on the subject age and who completed the questionnaire. Of the respondents, 54% had experienced pain within the previous 3 months. Overall, a quarter of the respondents reported chronic pain (recurrent or continuous pain for more than 3 months). The prevalence of chronic pain increased with age, and was significantly higher in girls (P < 0.001). In girls, a marked increase occurred in reporting chronic pain between 12 and 14 years of age. The most common types of pain in children were limb pain, headache, and abdominal pain. Half of the respondents who had reported pain reported to have multiple pain, and one‐third of the chronic pain sufferers experienced frequent and intense pain. These multiple pains and severe pains were more often reported by girls (P < 0.001). The intensity of pain was higher in the case of chronic pain (P < 0.001) and multiple pains (P < 0.001), and for chronic pain the intensity was higher for girls (P < 0.001). These findings indicate that chronic pain is a common complaint in childhood and adolescence. In particular, the high prevalence of severe chronic pain and multiple pain in girls aged 12 years and over calls for follow‐up investigations documenting the various bio‐psycho‐social factors related to this 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 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.340 | 0.176 |
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".