Attentional functioning in fibromyalgia, rheumatoid arthritis, and musculoskeletal pain patients
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".