Pain assessment: the advantages of using pain scales in lysosomal storage diseases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Routine and standardized assessment of pain should be conducted in patients with conditions, such as Fabry disease, that are associated with chronic pain. Such pain assessments, using validated and reliable pain scales or questionnaires, should cover the severity, location, temporal pattern and quality of the pain and how the pain impacts on quality of life and normal daily activity. The severity or intensity of pain can be assessed on verbal descriptor scales, visual analogue scales and numerical rating scales, which rate pain on a scale from ‘no pain’ through to ‘excruciating pain’ or ‘pain as bad as you can imagine’. Three pain questionnaires that include such rating scales are short enough to be used repeatedly in a clinical or research setting: the Memorial Pain Assessment Card, the McGill Pain Questionnaire and the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI). The BPI also measures the effect of pain on daily activity and quality of life, defines the location of pain and assesses the effectiveness of previous pain relief medication. Conclusions: Reliable instruments are available to assess pain in chronic disease. In Fabry disease, these should be used routinely to aid decisions concerning analgesic/pain control medication and to assess the effect of enzyme replacement therapy.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".