Comment on 'Fibromyalgia and the therapeutic domain. A philosophical study on the origins of fibromyalgia in a specific social setting.' by Hazemeijer and Rasker
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sir, We are perplexed by Hazemeijer's and Rasker's review of the fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) [1]. We agree that FMS is controversial, but they present mainly one side of the controversy. They cite with approval Hadler's belief that FMS is ‘a form of illness behavior’ [2]; readers familiar with the scientific literature on FMS will recognize that there are no studies to support this. Hazemeijer and Rasker present a detailed philosophical analysis ending with the suggestion that philosophy, not science, can provide “the solution of treating and preventing ‘syndromes’ like fibromyalgia”. We assume that when they state that physicians are unable to demonstrate FMS as a visible disease they mean a condition in which the diagnosis is based largely on the patient's history of distress. In this respect FMS is similar to such conditions as migraine, trigeminal neuralgia, polymyalgia rheumatica (especially in those with low sedimentation rates) [3], or idiopathic small-fibre painful sensory neuropathy. Are these entities also to be elucidated by invoking memes, therapeutic domains, matrices and looping effects? Does dynamic nominalism explain the high levels of substance P and nerve growth factor in the cerebrospinal fluid of patients with FMS [4, 5]? How does phenotypic iatrogenesis induce decreased production of growth hormone or increased somatostatin tone in FMS [6]?
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 | 0.005 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.076 | 0.059 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
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".