Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34337614›Full record

ArticlePattern Recognition : ICPR International Workshops and Challenges, virtual event, January 10-15, 2021, proceedings. Part I. International Conference on Pattern Recognition (25th : 2021 : Online)2021

Pain Intensity Assessment in Sickle Cell Disease Patients Using Vital Signs During Hospital Visits.

Swati Padhee, Amanuel Alambo, Tanvi Banerjee, Arvind Subramaniam, Daniel M Abrams, Gary K Nave, Nirmish Shah

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pattern Recognition : ICPR International Workshops and Challenges, virtual event, January 10-15, 2021, proceedings. Part I. International Conference on Pattern Recognition (25th : 2021 : Online), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Mathematical modeling of SCD: a literature review.Journal of sickle cell disease · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Swati PadheeWright State University, Dayton, USA.
Amanuel AlamboWright State University, Dayton, USA.
Tanvi BanerjeeWright State University, Dayton, USA.
Arvind SubramaniamDuke University, Durham, USA.
Daniel M AbramsNorthwestern University, Evanston, USA.
Gary K NaveNorthwestern University, Evanston, USA.
Nirmish ShahDuke University, Durham, USA.
Wright State University · USDuke University · USNorthwestern University · US

Funding

SCH: INT: Collaborative Research: Development and analysis of new mathematical and statistical models for chronic painR01AT010413 · NCCIH · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY · PI ABRAMS, DANIEL M, BANERJEE, TANVI · 2018 to 2021
$1.5M
NCCIH NIH HHS R01 AT010413
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pain in sickle cell disease (SCD) is often associated with increased morbidity, mortality, and high healthcare costs. The standard method for predicting the absence, presence, and intensity of pain has long been self-report. However, medical providers struggle to manage patients based on subjective pain reports correctly and pain medications often lead to further difficulties in patient communication as they may cause sedation and sleepiness. Recent studies have shown that objective physiological measures can predict subjective self-reported pain scores for inpatient visits using machine learning (ML) techniques. In this study, we evaluate the generalizability of ML techniques to data collected from 50 patients over an extended period across three types of hospital visits (i.e., inpatient, outpatient and outpatient evaluation). We compare five classification algorithms for various pain intensity levels at both intra-individual (within each patient) and inter-individual (between patients) level. While all the tested classifiers perform much better than chance, a Decision Tree (DT) model performs best at predicting pain on an 11-point severity scale (from 0-10) with an accuracy of 0.728 at an inter-individual level and 0.653 at an intra-individual level. The accuracy of DT significantly improves to 0.941 on a 2-point rating scale (i.e., no/mild pain: 0-5, severe pain: 6-10) at an inter-individual level. Our experimental results demonstrate that ML techniques can provide an objective and quantitative evaluation of pain intensity levels for all three types of hospital visits.

Indexed as

Pain intensity quantificationPain pattern identificationPhysiological signalsSickle cell anemia

Identifiers

PMID34337614
PMCPMC8319918
OpenAlexW3106781099

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.