Does the label “fibromyalgia” alter health status, function, and health service utilization? A prospective, within‐group comparison in a community cohort of adults with chronic widespread pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine if assigning the label of fibromyalgia (FM) to individuals with chronic widespread pain has a significant effect on long-term health status, function, and health service utilization. METHODS: In the London Fibromyalgia Epidemiology Study, 100 individuals with FM were identified by screening 3,395 non-institutionalized adults. Only 28 of the 100 had been previously diagnosed with FM; for 72, the diagnostic label was new. All 28 with prediagnosed FM were female compared with 58 of the 72 newly diagnosed cases. In a prospective, within-group comparison, we compared previously non-labeled FM cases at study entry (prelabeling) and at 18 and 36 months followup (postlabeling) with respect to general health status, fibromyalgia-related symptoms, and all items from the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) (including total FIQ score, and several measures of health service utilization) to see if health status, function, and health services utilization had changed, using paired t-tests. We also compared percentage reporting work disability at baseline and 18 months using Pearson's chi(2). RESULTS: Fifty-six (78%) of the original 72 newly diagnosed FM cases were available for reassessment at 18 months, and 43 (60%) at 36 months. Although physical functioning decreased slightly over time, there also was a statistically significant improvement in satisfaction with health, and newly diagnosed FM cases reported fewer symptoms and major symptoms over the long term. No other differences in clinical status or health service use occurred over time. CONCLUSION: The FM label does not have a meaningful adverse affect on clinical outcome over the long term. Further research is necessary to document the short- and long-term effect of labeling in the chronic pain patient.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".