Painful Restless Legs Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Limb sensations in restless legs syndrome (RLS) include an urge to move, a discomfort, or even a frank pain. However, no large studies compared painful to nonpainful RLS as specific phenotypes. We investigated the painful form of RLS in a clinical series of primary RLS patients and a large sample of members of the French RLS association (AFE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-six patients with primary RLS (face-to-face interviewed) and 734 AFE members (received by ground mail an self-report questionnaire) responded to the presence/absence of painful RLS sensations and were included. They completed a French reconstruction of the McGill Pain Questionnaire (Questionnaire Douleur de Saint-Antoine [QDSA]) to assess their RLS sensations as well as questions about demographics and clinical RLS features. RESULTS: Sixty-one percent of interviewed patients and 55% of AFE members had painful RLS sensations. The patients with painful RLS were more sleepy and tired than those with nonpainful sensations. The RLS severity and need for current, dopaminergic treatment were higher in AFE members with painful than with nonpainful RLS. In both the groups, the QDSA qualifier "burning" was the most frequent (37% to 44%) sensory discriminator of painful RLS. In the AFE sample, QDSA scores, and the distribution of words in all QDSA subclasses was skewed toward a more severe connotation with more than one third of patients selecting affective discriminating words like "exasperating," "exhausting," and "unbearable." DISCUSSION: Painful RLS appears to be a severe, "burning" subtype of RLS, and could be a distinct disease or a clinical variant in a sensations continuum.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".