Measurement Properties and Muscular Demands of a Pneumatic Pain Meter: A Laboratory-Controlled Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We determined muscular demand, within-day instrument reliability, and criterion-concurrent validity of a pneumatic pain meter device. Fifty healthy adults (22 males, 28 females; age 23 ± 6 years) completed 30 block-randomized trials meeting target levels between 10 and 100 with concurrent measures of electromyography. Experimental pain was induced over the low back and pain ratings were taken on the device as well as a 100 mm visual analog scale before induction and at 10, 20 and 30 min. Electromyography levels significantly increased from target levels 0 to 100 (p < .001), and no significant fatigue, identified as a shift in median power frequency, was identified (p = .095). Within-day reliability was excellent: ICC3,1 = 0.998 (95% confidence interval 0.997–0.998). A Bland-Altman analysis showed that 95% of the differences between the pain meter and visual analog scale fall within limits of agreement of +13.27 and −18.62. Future work should confirm measurement metrics in special populations and extended periods of time.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".