Adaptation and validity of the critical care pain observation tool: a scoping review
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
Objective. The Critical Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) is a pain assessment for critical patients in the intensive care unit, who are unable to report their pain. This review article provides a comprehensive review of the literature regarding validated CPOT. with the goal of identifying and documenting studies and procedures available for cultural adaptation and validation of CPOT. Method. Search for articles through the main databases, namely PubMed, Science Direct and Google Scholar. Review and reference checking was performed using inclusion and exclusion criteria. A collection of literature related to CPOT is included in the articles to be selected and those that meet the eligibility criteria will be included in the review. Result. The article search results obtained 13 articles that met the inclusion criteria which presented CPOT in 13 different languages, namely French-Canadian, Spanish, Traditional Chinese, German, Brazilian Portuguese, Turkish, European Portuguese, Polish, Persian, Chinese, Italian, Norwegian and Dutch. All of them present validity, reliability and translation method Conclusion. High reliability and validity between different versions of the CPOT language have been identified. This review provides a useful summary of systematic reviews of CPOT in future research.
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 | 0.004 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it