The Pain in Dystonia Scale (PIDS)—Development and Validation in Cervical Dystonia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A better understanding of pain in adult-onset idiopathic dystonia (AOID) is needed to implement effective therapeutic strategies. OBJECTIVE: To develop a new rating instrument for pain in AOID and validate it in cervical dystonia (CD). METHODS: Development and validation of the Pain in Dystonia Scale (PIDS) comprised three phases. In phase 1, international experts and participants with AOID generated and evaluated the preliminary items for content validity. In phase 2, the PIDS was drafted and revised by the experts, followed by cognitive interviews to ensure self-administration suitability. In phase 3, the PIDS psychometric properties were assessed in 85 participants with CD and retested in 40 participants. RESULTS: The final version of PIDS evaluates pain severity (by body-part), functional impact, and external modulating factors. Test-retest reliability showed a high-correlation coefficient for the total score (0.9, P < 0.001), and intraclass correlation coefficients were 0.7 or higher for all items in all body-parts subscores. The overall PIDS severity score showed high internal consistency (Cronbach's α, 0.9). Convergent validity analysis revealed a strong correlation between the PIDS severity score and the Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale pain subscale (0.8, P < 0.001) and the Brief Pain Inventory-short form items related to pain at time of the assessment (0.7, P < 0.001) and impact of pain on daily functioning (0.7, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The PIDS is the first specific questionnaire developed to evaluate pain in all patients with AOID, here, demonstrating high-level psychometric properties in people with CD. Future work will validate PIDS in other forms of AOID. © 2023 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".