Objective pain score? Here's the problem with that
Are you in pain? Are you sure? On a scale from zero to ten, where zero is no pain at all and ten is the worst pain imaginable, how much pain is it?
Invitations to rate your pain on some arbitrary scale of numerals, or on a display of smiley faces that range from happy to sad (if you're a child), remain the standard ways of assessing people's pain. If a doctor wants to know how much pain their patient is in, that's how they'll try to find out. And they do this for good reason: no one knows a person's pain better than the person whose pain it is.
And yet, ratings like these have their limitations. After all, people interpret their pains differently. Some make much of very little, giving high ratings to fairly light pains, while others make little of very much, giving low ratings to pretty bad pains. When a patient rates their pain a five out of ten, who's to say how much pain that five actually stands for (other than the patient)?
Luckily, we are promised that these problems with subjective pain ratings will soon be a matter of the past. Several labs around the world report that they are on the cusp of releasing the first objective pain measurement technology: devices that will be able to determine the type and intensity of a person's pain without having to rely on anyone's rating or interpretation at all.
These measurement devices differ in their specifics, but converge in kind. They track patterns in so-called 'biomarkers' that correlate with pain experiences – such as the activation of certain nerve fibres, pupil dilation, or variations in blood flow – and compare these patterns with lots of data from people in pain. Doing so, these devices are meant to measure how much pain a person is in based on their biomarker profile.
Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK's latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences. Join The Conversation for free today.
The upshots of this technology are expected to be tremendous: more accurate diagnostics, better testing of analgesic drugs, massive savings for the healthcare system, you name it. Objective pain measurement is meant to transform pain management as we know it.
But there's a catch, and it's a big one. Ask yourself: how did anyone ever figure out that these devices actually work? I mean, how can these researchers be sure that these patterns of nerve activation or those variations in blood flow correspond to that much pain? The answer may surprise you.
To test the accuracy of their devices, pain researchers evaluate their measurements by reference to the only glimpse of people's pain experiences they have access to: subjective pain ratings. That's right. The ultimate test for how good an 'objective' pain measurement device truly is is to see how it stacks up against people's subjective ratings – the very ratings that were deemed so problematic that we wanted new ones.
The reason researchers do this is that they're caught in a catch-22: to verify that they have accurately measured a person's pain, they would have to know how much pain the person was in to begin with, which of course they don't – that's why they're developing a measurement device. What they do know, however, is how that person rates their pain, and so that's all they have to evaluate the accuracy of their measurements with.
But a device that predicts people's pain ratings based on their biomarkers is a far cry from an 'objective pain measurement' technology. Its measurements can't tell us how much pain a person is in with any more accuracy, any less bias, or any more authority than a person's own rating. Why? Because it's trained on subjective pain ratings we had trouble interpreting in the first place.
The problem here has nothing to do with technology. It's not about how sophisticated your algorithms are, how advanced your equipment is, or how much research funding you got. It's about the philosophical issue that pain is a subjective experience with only one person who has access to it: the person in pain. Linking biomarkers to pain ratings will never make that access more public.
Should we be disappointed? I'm not so sure. If objective measures of pain existed, and if they were worth their salt, then they would come apart from people's own assessments of their pain. They'd have to, since they could hardly be any better or any more accurate if they came out just the same.
But if what I make of my pain and what a device makes of it is different, then whose assessment is the more important one here? And who is my doctor going to take more seriously in guiding their treatment recommendations: the flashy objective pain score or my little subjective rating? I'm glad I won't have to find out.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Laurenz Casser receives funding from the Leverhulme Trust.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
4 hours ago
- Bloomberg
Starmer Calls on Nvidia's Huang to Train Up Britons on AI
Keir Starmer will make an appearance alongside Nvidia Corp co-founder Jensen Huang on Monday, as the British prime minister puts technology and artificial intelligence at the heart of his government's plan to boost economic growth. The Labour leader will hold an in-conversation event in London with tech billionaire Huang to mark an agreement in which Nvidia helps the UK train more people in AI and expands research at universities and at the company's own AI lab in Bristol, west England.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Astronomers finally figured out how Pluto cools itself
If you purchase an independently reviewed product or service through a link on our website, BGR may receive an affiliate commission. Pluto might be small and distant, but it keeps surprising scientists. After the New Horizons spacecraft zipped past it in 2015, we got our first real look at its icy landscape and unexpectedly active atmosphere. But even with those discoveries, one question lingered in scientists' minds. How does Pluto regulate its temperature with such a strange environment? Well, thanks to new data from the James Webb Space Telescope, researchers say they may have found the answer, and it's pretty wild. Where most planets rely on gases in the atmosphere to regulate their temperatures, researchers believe that Pluto cools itself using haze particles. Today's Top Deals Best deals: Tech, laptops, TVs, and more sales Best Ring Video Doorbell deals Memorial Day security camera deals: Reolink's unbeatable sale has prices from $29.98 See, Pluto's atmosphere is incredibly thin and made mostly of nitrogen, with traces of methane and carbon monoxide. What makes it special isn't just its composition, but the presence of a constant haze. This haze is made up of tiny particles, and if the data from James Webb is correct, it does more than just drift around in the cold. Normally, planetary atmospheres manage temperature through movement and properties of gas molecules, as I mentioned before. But Pluto cools itself differently. As sunlight hits the planet, the haze particles absorb energy and rise. When they cool, they sink again. This up-and-down cycle helps manage the planet's heat, keeping the atmosphere in a delicate balance. No other world cools itself this way, as far as we know. The idea is kind of crazy, but it also isn't unprecedented. Researchers actually proposed it a few years ago, before we had any proof. That's where James Webb comes in. Recent observations focused on Pluto using mid-infrared wavelengths. The telescope detected the exact type of thermal signals that scientists had predicted. The haze in Pluto's atmosphere was indeed radiating heat, just as the theory suggested it would. But these findings tell us more than how Pluto cools itself. They will also force scientists to rethink what's possible for other hazy worlds. Moons like Titan and Triton, for instance, also have nitrogen-heavy atmospheres and thick hazes. They could be managing their heat in similar ways. There's also a deeper link to our own planet. Researchers say Earth's early atmosphere may have looked more like Pluto's, filled with nitrogen and hydrocarbons. By studying how Pluto's haze behaves, researchers might uncover clues about how conditions to support life first formed here on Earth. More Top Deals Amazon gift card deals, offers & coupons 2025: Get $2,000+ free See the
Bloomberg
7 hours ago
- Bloomberg
America Has Plenty of Rare Earths. But Not for Long
Hypocrisy, it's said, is the tribute that vice pays to virtue. The US government's meltdown about rare earths similarly shows how an administration determined to halt the energy transition knows it's already lost the argument. Rare earth magnets are the super-strong pellets that help stick a charging cable to your laptop, smartwatch or headphones. They're also an essential component in a swath of high-tech applications. About 90% are produced in China.
