2012 Canadian Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Fibromyalgia Syndrome: Executive Summary
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent neurophysiological evidence attests to the validity of fibromyalgia (FM), a chronic pain condition that affects >2% of the population. OBJECTIVES: To present the evidence-based guidelines for the diagnosis, management and patient trajectory of individuals with FM. METHODS: A needs assessment following consultation with diverse health care professionals identified questions pertinent to various aspects of FM. A literature search identified the evidence available to address these questions; evidence was graded according to the standards of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. Drafted recommendations were appraised by an advisory panel to reflect meaningful clinical practice. RESULTS: The present recommendations incorporate the new clinical concepts of FM as a clinical construct without any defining physical abnormality or biological marker, characterized by fluctuating, diffuse body pain and the frequent symptoms of sleep disturbance, fatigue, mood and cognitive changes. In the absence of a defining cause or cure, treatment objectives should be patient-tailored and symptom-based, aimed at reducing global complaints and enhancing function. Healthy lifestyle practices with active patient participation in health care forms the cornerstone of care. Multimodal management may include nonpharmacological and pharmacological strategies, although it must be acknowledged that pharmacological treatments provide only modest benefit. Maintenance of function and retention in the workforce is encouraged. CONCLUSIONS: The new Canadian guidelines for the treatment of FM should provide health professionals with confidence in the complete care of these patients and improve clinical outcomes.
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 | 0.012 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.013 |
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".