Chronic fatigue in sarcoidosis-in-clinical-remission: Psychological and physical characteristics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When sarcoidosis is in clinical remission, complaints of chronic fatigue often persist. The exact features of this post-inflammatory fatigue are unknown. This study assesses the severity of fatigue and the presence of fatigue-related symptoms in sarcoidosis-in-clinical-remission. Furthermore, we evaluate psychological distress, pain and patient-reported sleep quality, and record physical activity levels and muscle strength as objective assessments of fatigue. Lastly, we assess the severity of fatigue at a follow-up. Methods: Seventy-five patients with sarcoidosis-in-clinical-remission were evaluated with the Checklist Individual Strength (fatigue), the SymptomChecklist-90 (psychological distress), the McGill Pain Questionnaire (pain), standardized interview (fatigue-related symptoms), sleep diary, accelerometer and muscle strength tests. Results: Fatigue severity mean score in sarcoidosis patients in-clinical-remission was high (fatigue-severity score: 30.5±15.5), and fatigue-related symptoms were significantly more present in the fatigued patients. Median time since diagnosis was 9 years. Fatigue was significantly associated with increased psychological distress, higher pain severity scores and more pain points, reduced physical activity and reduced muscle strength. Scores on sleep quality were normal. Response at follow-up was 87%. Fatigue severity scores of the responding group were significantly increased compared to a year before. Conclusions: Fatigue in sarcoidosis patients in clinical remission is a long-lasting and severe problem that deteriorates over time. This post-inflammatory chronic fatigue is associated with a constellation of psychological and physical symptoms.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".