Attentional functioning in fibromyalgia, rheumatoid arthritis, and musculoskeletal pain patients
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether chronic pain patients have deficits in attentional functioning compared with pain-free controls, and whether fibromyalgia patients have larger deficits in attentional functioning compared with rheumatoid arthritis and musculoskeletal pain patients. METHODS: Sixty patients (20 in each of 3 patient groups) and 20 pain-free controls completed measures assessing pain intensity, mood, pain-related disability, somatic awareness, and catastrophic thinking about pain. Attentional functioning was assessed using an age-standardized, ecologically valid test battery. Analyses were made of between-group differences. RESULTS: Sixty percent of patients had at least one score in the clinical range of neuropsychological impairment, independent of demography and mood. Fibromyalgia patients were more anxious and somatically aware than rheumatoid arthritis or musculoskeletal pain patients, but did not show larger attentional deficits than other patient groups. CONCLUSION: All 3 groups of chronic pain patients, regardless of diagnosis, had impaired cognitive functioning on an ecologically sensitive neuropsychological test of everyday attention.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 it