Thai Short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To validate the Thai Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (Th-SFMPQ). MATERIAL AND METHOD: A postal survey to find the most corresponding terms to those used in the original English short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire had been performed The Thai version was created and validated. Sixty patients who had either musculoskeletal or neuropathic pain were assessed by two interviewers with this Th-SFMPQ. RESULTS: Forty four women and sixteen men participated in this study. Average age was 44.3 +/- 12.8 years and 80% of them had musculoskeletal pain. Means of sensory score was 8.98, affective score was 5.73, total score was 14.71, total count was 7.33, Present Pain Intensity (PPI) was 3.21 and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) was 53.61. Cronbach's a value was 0.7881 and inter-rater validity value of PPI was more than 0.7. The correlation coefficient was quite high (r > 0.8) for all scales. Regarding content validity, three pain descriptors (ie. stabbing, gnawing, and splitting) did not meet 33% in Melzack's criteria. CONCLUSION: The Th-SFMPQ has good internal consistency and inter-rater validity. Three uncommon descriptors should be substituted by other words or discarded in later version.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.003 |
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".