Can the Sensory Symptoms of Restless Legs Syndrome Be Assessed Using a Qualitative Pain Questionnaire?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The sensations of restless legs syndrome (RLS) are described as paresthesias and dysesthesias, sensations which also occur in neuropathic pain. Whether validated pain assessment tools can be used to measure the quality and severity of RLS sensations has not been explored. METHODS: Patients with RLS (n=25) completed the RLS severity scale of the International Restless Legs Syndrome Study Group, the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), and a Visual Analog Scale. Words chosen frequently were also compared with those describing different pain types. RESULTS: The International Restless Legs Syndrome Study Group RLS severity scale score correlated significantly with the Pain Rating Index, and number of words chosen derived from the MPQ, but not with the visual analog scale estimate of pain intensity. The words chosen by patients with RLS showed no significant correlation with words chosen by patients with either neuropathic or nociceptive pain. DISCUSSION: The quality and severity of the sensation of RLS can be measured on the MPQ, and severity calculated from MPQ indices correlates significantly with a standard RLS severity measure. Thus the nonpainful sensations of RLS appear to be a subclinical form of pain.
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 | 0.007 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".