Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry 1988;51:481-486 Pain intensity measurements in patients with acute pain receiving afferent stimulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY Six different pain rating scales, including a "'pain relief scale", were compared in 80 patients suffering acute orofacial pain. Pain intensity measurements were made before and after a 30 min period of afferent stimulation (TENS/vibration and placebo). A good correlation was found between pain scores derived from the pain relief scale, visual analogue-, numerical- and graphic rating scales. The verbal rating scale did not perform well. The pain relief scale and the numerical rating scale are interesting alternatives to the established visual analogue scale. Different techniques for pain assessment have been developed, some attempting to reflect several aspects of the complex pain experience, such as the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ). ' 2 As discussed recently3 it is important to define what dimensions of the pain experience are supposed to be rated by the patient, and later evaluated. The results may also be greatly influenced by the cause of the patients ' pain as seen in studies on pain of different aetiologies using the
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".