Pain and pain relief in fibromyalgia patients followed for three years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the natural clinical course of pain in fibromyalgia (FM) and patients' reports of the use of interventions for pain relief. METHODS: This prospective 3-year study examined pain, and the treatment thereof, in a cohort of 82 women with FM, of whom 59 (72%) were reassessed on 3 subsequent occasions. Pain was measured by the following parameters: visual analog scale (VASpain), tender point count (TP), and the occurrence of widespread pain (WP). Function was assessed by the Health Assessment Questionnaire and the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire, and depression and anxiety by the Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales. All treatments for FM were recorded, and patients identified the treatment that they believed had helped their symptoms of FM. RESULTS: Pain reporting as measured by all parameters decreased significantly for the whole group over the duration of the study. The mean VASpain decreased from 66 to 55, the mean TP count decreased from 13.5 to 10.5, and the number of patients with WP decreased from 100% to 63%. VASpain correlated positively with TP and WP. One third of patients experienced a reduction in pain by at least 30% from baseline as well as a better outcome in overall status of FM. There was a decline in the use of prescribed medications, whereas the use of alternative products increased. Physical treatment modalities were more often perceived to be of benefit than prescribed medications. CONCLUSION: We have observed a spontaneous improvement in pain reporting and less medication use in FM patients, suggesting that the course of this condition may be more favorable than has previously been reported.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".