Complications in Operationalizing Lifelong Fatigue as an Exclusionary Criterion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The case definitions for chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) and chronic fatigue syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME) stipulate that the experience of lifelong fatigue is an exclusionary criterion (Carruthers et al., 2003 Carruthers, B. M., Jain, A. K., De Meirleir, K. L., Peterson, D. L., Klimas, N. G., Lerner, A. M., … van de Sande, M. I. (2003). Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome: Clinical working case definition, diagnostic and treatments protocols. Journal of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, 11, 7–115.[Taylor & Francis Online] , [Google Scholar]; Fukuda et al., 1994 Fukuda, K., Straus, S. E., Hickie, I., Sharpe, M. C., Dobbins, J. G., & Komaroff, A. (1994). The chronic fatigue syndrome: A comprehensive approach to its definition and study. Annals of Internal Medicine, 121, 953–959.[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). This article examines the lifelong fatigue construct and identifies potential validity and reliability issues in using lifelong fatigue as an exclusionary condition. Participants in the current study completed the DePaul Symptom Questionnaire (Jason et al., 2010 Jason, L. A., Evans, M., Porter, N., Brown, M., Brown, A., Hunnell, J., … Friedberg, F. (2010). The development of a revised Canadian myalgic encephalomyelitis chronic fatigue syndrome case definition. American Journal of Biochemistry and Biotechnology, 6(2), 120–135.[Crossref] , [Google Scholar]), and responses were examined to determine if they had experienced lifelong fatigue. This article discusses the extensive process that was needed to confidently discern which participants had or did not have lifelong fatigue. Using the most rigorous standards, few individuals were classified as having lifelong fatigue. In addition, those with and without lifelong fatigue had few significant differences in symptoms and functional areas. This article concludes with a recommendation that lifelong fatigue should no longer be used as an exclusionary criterion for CFS or ME/CFS.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".