Monozygotic Twins Discordant for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: Regional Cerebral Blood Flow SPECT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the relationship between regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF) and chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) in monozygotic twins discordant for CFS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors conducted a co-twin control study of 22 monozygotic twins in which one twin met criteria for CFS and the other was healthy. Twins underwent a structured psychiatric interview and resting technetium 99m-hexamethyl-propyleneamine oxime single photon emission computed tomography of the brain. They also rated their mental status before the procedure. Scans were interpreted independently by two physicians blinded to illness status and then at a blinded consensus reading. Imaging fusion software with automated three-dimensional matching of rCBF images was used to coregister and quantify results. Outcomes were the number and distribution of abnormalities at both reader consensus and automated quantification. Mean rCBF levels were compared by using random effects regression models to account for the effects of twin matching and potential confounding factors. RESULTS: The twins with and those without CFS were similar in mean number of visually detected abnormalities and in mean differences quantified by using image registration software. These results were unaltered with adjustments for fitness level, depression, and mood before imaging. CONCLUSION: The study results did not provide evidence of a distinctive pattern of resting rCBF abnormalities associated with CFS. The described method highlights the importance of selecting well-matched control subjects.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".