Fibromyalgia syndrome in an Amish community: a controlled study to determine disease and symptom prevalence.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To estimate the point prevalence of fibromyalgia syndrome (FM) in Amish adults and to compare the prevalence of chronic pain, chronic widespread pain, FM, chronic fatigue, and debilitating fatigue in the Amish versus non-Amish rural and urban controls. The a priori assumption was that, if litigation and/or compensation availability have major effects on FM prevalence, then FM prevalence in the Amish should approach zero. METHODS: We surveyed 242 Amish adults in a small rural community southeast of London, Ontario, Canada. Individuals were screened using a validated screening instrument. Those reporting chronic, widespread pain were examined for FM using published classification criteria. Amish results were compared to results collected in a random telephone survey of 492 non-Amish adults living in rural Southwestern Ontario and 3395 non-Amish adults previously surveyed in London. RESULTS: Pain lasting at least one week in the preceding 3 months was reported by 34.3% of the Amish; pain in the upper extremities by 25.4%, in the lower extremities by 22.5%, and in the trunk by 28.1%. Twenty-six (15 women, 11 men) reported chronic, widespread pain. Eleven FM cases were confirmed among women (age adjusted point prevalence, p = 10.4%) and 2 among men (p = 3.7%) for an overall age and sex adjusted prevalence of 7.3% (95% CI 5.3, 9.7); this was both statistically greater than zero (p < 0.0001) and greater than in either control population (both p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: FM is relatively common among the Amish.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".