Self-Reported Pain and Pain Observations in People with Korsakoff’s Syndrome: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Korsakoff's syndrome (KS) is a chronic neuropsychiatric disorder. The large majority of people with KS experience multiple comorbid health problems, including cardiovascular disease, malignancy, and diabetes mellitus. To our knowledge pain has not been investigated in this population. The aim of this study was to investigate self-reported pain as well as pain behavior observations reported by nursing staff. In total, 38 people diagnosed with KS residing in a long-term care facility for KS participated in this research. The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Pain Assessment in Impaired Cognition (PAIC-15), Rotterdam Elderly Pain Observation Scale (REPOS), and the McGill Pain Questionnaire-Dutch Language Version (MPQ-DLV) were used to index self-rated and observational pain in KS. People with KS reported significantly lower pain levels than their healthcare professionals reported for them. The highest pain scores were found on the PAIC-15, specifically on the emotional expression scale. Of importance, the patient pain reports did not correlate with the healthcare pain reports. Moreover, there was a high correlation between neuropsychiatric symptoms and observational pain reports. Specifically, agitation and observational pain reports strongly correlated. In conclusion, people with KS report less pain than their healthcare professionals indicate for them. Moreover, there is a close relationship between neuropsychiatric symptoms and observation-reported pain in people with KS. Our results suggest that pain is possibly underreported by people with KS and should be taken into consideration in treating neuropsychiatric symptoms of KS as a possible underlying cause.
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 | 0.023 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".