Heterogeneity Within the Fibromyalgia Population: Theoretical Implications of Variable Tender Point Severity Ratings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) tender point (TP) criterion is used in diagnosing fibromyalgia syndrome (FM). There has been little research investigating patterns of positive TP. We investigated response patterns of TP in a sample of patients with FM. METHODS: Manual TP survey data were available on 1433 patients with FM. Factor analysis was conducted on ACR TP and control (CON) points. Factor scores were cluster analyzed to identify subgroups based on TP scores. Subgroups were compared on demographic and psychosocial variables. RESULTS: Factor analysis resulted in 4 TP groupings: neck/shoulder girdle, gluteal/trochanteric, and upper extremity regions, and a set of CON TP. Cluster analysis revealed 3 clusters. Group 1 was high on all 3 TP regions and the CON set; Group 2 moderate on the 3 TP regions, low on the CON set; and Group 3 was relatively low on all 3 TP regions and the CON set. The group highest on the CON and TP regions reported the greatest pain (7.58 +/- 1.23; p < 0.001), sleep disturbance (7.05 +/- 1.61; p < 0.001), anxiety (10.14 +/- 4.57; p < 0.001), and depression (8.42 +/- 4.4; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: TP severity ratings varied among cluster groups, suggesting patients with FM are not homogeneous. Variations in TP severity provide information regarding the degree to which FM affects patients' quality of life. Patients with elevated scores on the CON TP demonstrated a general pattern reflecting lower thresholds for symptom reporting and, perhaps, disease severity. Research is needed to elucidate mechanisms underlying heterogeneity among the FM population.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".