Reliability and minimal detectable difference of pressure pain thresholds in a pain-free population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this work was to evaluate the inter-rater and intra-rater reliability and minimal detectable difference (MDD) of pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) in pain-free participants with two examiners over two consecutive days in a cross-sectional study design. Examiners used a standardized method to measure and locate a specific testing site over tibialis anterior for PPT testing with a hand-held algometer. The mean of each examiner’s three PPT measurements was used to calculate the intraclass correlation coefficient, inter-rater reliability, and intra-rater reliability. The minimal detectable difference (MDD) was calculated. Eighteen participants were recruited (11 female). The inter-rater reliability was 0.94 and 0.96 on day 1 and day 2, respectively. Intra-rater reliability for the examiners was 0.96 and 0.92 on day 1 and day 2, respectively. The MDD on day 1 was 1.24 kg/cm 2 (CI: 0.76–2.03) and the MDD on day 2 was 0.88 kg/cm 2 (CI: 0.54–1.43). This study demonstrates high inter- and intra-rater reliability and the MDD values for this method of pressure algometry.
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 | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".