Depression, fatigue, and pain in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE): Relationship to the American College of Rheumatology SLE neuropsychological battery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the frequency and reliability of depression, fatigue, and pain self-report measures in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and healthy controls, and to examine the relationship between a cognitive impairment index (CII) derived from the American College of Rheumatology neuropsychology research battery of tests for SLE (ACR-SLE battery) and measures of depression, pain, fatigue, and perceived cognitive dysfunction. METHODS: Thirty-one patients with SLE with a history of overt neuropsychiatric symptoms (neuropsychiatric SLE [NPSLE]), 22 patients with SLE without overt neuropsychiatric symptoms (non-NPSLE), and 25 healthy controls completed the following measures at baseline and 1-month followup: ACR-SLE battery, perceived cognitive difficulties, depression, fatigue, and pain. RESULTS: Patients with SLE (both NPSLE and non-NPSLE) showed higher symptoms of depression, higher levels of fatigue, greater pain, and more perceived cognitive problems. All measures except the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression scale (CES-D) demonstrated adequate reliability across the SLE groups at retest. Only patients with NPSLE had significant correlations between CII and depression, fatigue, and pain. Neither the non-NPSLE patients nor the controls had significant relationships with the CII and these behavioral measures. CONCLUSION: Patients with SLE report higher levels of cognitive difficulties, depression, pain, and fatigue compared with controls. Reliability for all measures, except the CES-D, was established in the SLE group. Overall, results suggest that cognitive dysfunction, pain, fatigue, and depression in patients with NPSLE may represent global changes in the central nervous system that require ongoing evaluation and treatment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".