"Mc Gill Pain Questionnaire: A Cross-Cultural Adaptation Study in Chronic Neck Pain"
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Due to its complex nature, identification, and treatment of both physical and psychological risk factors is essential in patients with neck pain. Multidimensional pain assessment is an essential prerequisite to planning a multi-modal treatment. McGill Pain Questionnaire is a valid and reliable tool that can assist in multidimensional pain assessment. Hence, this study's objective was to determine the clinimetric properties and usability of the Hindi version of the McGill Pain Questionnaire in patients with neck pain.Methods: After securing permission from the University Ethics board, a cross-culturally adapted Hindi version of the Long Form McGill Pain Questionnaire was administered to evaluate clinimetric properties (validity and reliability) in fifty patients with chronic neck pain.Results: Hindi version of Long Form McGill Pain Questionnaires demonstrated high levels of internal consistency (Cronbach alpha range 0.76- 0.83) and reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient range 0.74-0.85) in patients with chronic neck pain. The Hindi version of LF-MPQ demonstrated adequate construct and concurrent validity when tested with VAS (Pearson r- 0.80) and NDI (Pearson r- 0.79), respectively.Conclusion: The Hindi version of the LF-MPQ was a reproducible and valid tool in chronic neck pain assessment.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 it