Pain Experience and Learned Helplessness in Women with Primary Sjögren's Syndrome and Women with Fibromyalgia: A Descriptive and Comparative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective. To describe the experience of pain and learned helplessness in women with primary Sjögren's syndrome [prim SS], to compare the experiences with those of women with fibromyalgia syndrome [FMS] and to investigate the prevalence of FMS in a random sample from a cohort of prim SS patients.Methods. Forty-three patients with prim SS, also examined for FMS according to the American College of Rheumatology 1990 [ACR-90] criteria, and 44 patients with FMS completed a questionnaire including the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire [SF-MPQ], a body map for pain drawing, Arthritis Helplessness Index [AHI], and questions about pain fluctuation, drug use, and functional status.Results. Thirty-six [84 percent] of the prim SS patients experienced pain and eight [19 percent] also fulfilled the ACR-criteria for FMS. The patients with prim SS and pain experienced lower pain intensity than the FMS patients according to the intensity scores included in SF-MPQ, i.e., visual analog scale [P = 0.016], present pain intensity [P = 0.004] and intensity of the pain descriptors [P < 0.001]. The prim SS patients also used fewer pain descriptors [P < 0.001] and had a lower pain drawing score [P < 0.001] than the FMS patients. No differences were seen in AHI, pain fluctuation, and functional status. The pain distribution differed between the groups with a tendency to a more central distribution in patients with FMS and a more peripheral distribution in those with prim SS. The eight subjects fulfilling the ACR-90 criteria for FMS had similiar results for pain assessments as the pure FMS group.Conclusion. The study suggests an increased prevalence of FMS and the presence of [at least] two patterns of pain in prim SS patients, one that is similiar to FMS and another that is less intensive and has a tendency to a more peripheral distribution. The therapeutic approach may differ in the two subgroups.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".