War Is Over. Give Peace a Chance (with apologies to the late John Lennon)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To the Editor: In his recent essay on fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS), entitled “Fibromyalgia Wars,” Wolfe1 paints a picture of this condition as one that epitomizes a conflict between practicing physicians, on the one hand, and an assortment of organized, powerful antagonists including academics, the pharmaceutical industry, patient support groups, lawyers, the Food and Drug Administration, the World Health Organisation, and the American College of Rheumatology. Casting oneself as the underdog is a good ploy for attracting sympathy and more easily enables the use of emotive rather than rational arguments. A “straw man” is erected and then attacked primarily using speculative concepts and ideas derived from a few medical historians. In contrast to the controlling influence of a “pharmaco-academic complex” (p. 672) in FMS portrayed by Wolfe, our personal experience has been that an interest in FMS has typically been regarded by our academic colleagues with politely disguised condescension, if not outright pity. Support groups, at least in Canada, have been politically ineffective, and the pharmaceutical industry was, until quite recently, conspicuous by its absence. The pendulum may have swung somewhat in the past 3 or 4 years, but certainly not as widely as Wolfe would have it. As far as we can discern, Wolfe’s arguments against FMS are as follows: 1. FMS is part of a continuum of pain and other distress and therefore should not be considered a separate entity; 2. The absence of “a specific pathological process”; 3. The socially and emotionally deleterious effects of labeling; 4. FMS is a “socially constructed illness”; 5. The lack of progress in improving the symptoms of FMS. We will briefly address each of these points: FM may well be part of a continuum of pain and … Address correspondence to Dr. Nielson, warren.nielson{at}sjhc.london.on.ca or Dr. Harth, harth{at}aimhealthgroup.com
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 | 0.003 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.017 |
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".