Aplicación del cuestionario mcgill en mujeres con fibromialgia y con lombalgia: un estudio comparativo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: to apply the McGill Questionnaire, translated and adapted to Brazil, and to identify the degree of internal association between this clinical group of women with fibromyalgia and another group of women with low back pain. Methods: this experimental research includes a case-control study. The population consisted of 83 patients diagnosed with fibromyalgia and low back pain who attended the Orthopedics and Trauma Outpatient Clinic at a Teaching Hospital in Fortaleza-CE, Brazil, from December 2005 to June 2006. The following exclusion criteria were adopted: patients with sensory and cognitive deficits, illiterate, younger than 21 and older than 60 years. A sample of 50 patients was obtained. The control and experimental groups were paired and the MPQ was applied to both. This study has been approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Federal University of Ceará (04545014-5). Results: were analyzed comparatively through non-parametrical statistics (Kruskal-Wallis). This test found significant means and standard deviations for the sensory and affective categories, with significant p-values for the descriptor “tiring”. Conclusion: the MPQ showed its appropriateness for pain assessment and analysis in fibromyalgia patients. Descriptors: pain; pain measurement; fibromyalgia.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".