Openness to psychological explanations and treatment among people with Fibromyalgia<i>versus</i>Rheumatoid Arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The classic perspective in the psychosomatic literature is that patients with medically unexplained syndromes do not acknowledge psychologically-based causes for their conditions and will not engage in psychological treatments. These assumptions were tested by contrasting the illness models and reported treatment experiences of individuals with fibromyalgia (FM), a syndrome with a currently unknown organic origin, with those of individuals with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), a 'legitimate' (i.e. organic) condition. METHOD: 193 patients with FM and 176 with RA completed measures assessing their views about the causes of their condition, the treatments they had used and their judged effectiveness. RESULTS: Contrary to prediction, compared to patients with RA, patients with FM were more likely to endorse psychological causes for their condition and reported having used more psychological management approaches. Moreover, patients with FM considered psychological approaches to be more effective than narcotics. CONCLUSION: These findings indicate that patients with FM do not react defensively to the implication of psychogenic causes. Rather, as a group, they tend to acknowledge both the psychosocial influences on and the effectiveness of psychological management approaches for their condition.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".