Infection and vaccination in chronic fatigue syndrome: Myth or reality?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is characterized by severe disabling fatigue lasting for more than 6 months associated with physical and mental disturbances such as headache, arthralgia, myalgia, memory impairment, sore throat and tender lymph nodes. The exact pathogenesis is still unknown. Several models were proposed to explain its etiology including chronic infection, endocrine dysfunction, autonomic imbalance, depression, decreased immunity states and an aberrant reaction to infection. No convincing evidence was found to support any of the suggested pathogenic mechanisms. The current concept is that CFS pathogenesis is a multi factorial condition in which an infective agent cause an aberrant immune response characterized by a shift to Th-2 dominant response. When the response fails to be switched-off, a chronic immune activation occurs and clinically expressed as the symptomatology of CFS. Vaccinations are used in order to stimulate the immune system to induce a persistent immunity against the favorable antigens. Several syndromes that contain chronic fatigue as one of their symptoms, such as "Gulf war syndrome" and macrophagic myofasciitis were related to vaccinations. Can vaccinations induce the aberrant immune response of CFS? Little is known about this issue. There are some reports on CFS occurring after vaccination, but few prospective and retrospective studies failed to find such an association. A working group of the Canadian Laboratory Center for Disease Control (LCDC) that was founded in order to examine the suspected association between CFS and vaccinations concluded that there is no evidence that relates CFS to vaccination. Further studies are requested to examine this issue since it is very conceivable that if infection can lead to CFS, vaccination may also lead to it in the same immune-mediated pathogenesis.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".