ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Children's Pain Identification Based on Skin Potential Signal.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Artificial intelligence in pediatric pain: a systematic review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Pain management is a crucial concern in medicine, particularly in the case of children who may struggle to effectively communicate their pain. Despite the longstanding reliance on various assessment scales by medical professionals, these tools have shown limitations and subjectivity. In this paper, we present a pain assessment scheme based on skin potential signals, aiming to convert subjective pain into objective indicators for pain identification using machine learning methods. We have designed and implemented a portable non-invasive measurement device to measure skin potential signals and conducted experiments involving 623 subjects. From the experimental data, we selected 358 valid records, which were then divided into 218 silent samples and 262 pain samples. A total of 38 features were extracted from each sample, with seven features displaying superior performance in pain identification. Employing three classification algorithms, we found that the random forest algorithm achieved the highest accuracy, reaching 70.63%. While this identification rate shows promise for clinical applications, it is important to note that our results differ from state-of-the-art research, which achieved a recognition rate of 81.5%. This discrepancy arises from the fact that our pain stimuli were induced by clinical operations, making it challenging to precisely control the stimulus intensity when compared to electrical or thermal stimuli. Despite this limitation, our pain assessment scheme demonstrates significant potential in providing objective pain identification in clinical settings. Further research and refinement of the proposed approach may lead to even more accurate and reliable pain management techniques in the future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.