Zur Geschichte des Neurastheniekonzeptes und seiner modernen Varianten Chronic-Fatigue-Syndrom, Fibromyalgie sowie Multiple Chemische Sensitivität
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article deals with the history of the terminological and nosological development of the concept neurasthenia introduced in 1869 by George Miller Beard and in particular with its reappearance in western medicine in the 1980 s. Beginning with its predecessors in antiquity and continuing with hypochondria, which became a fashionable disease in the 18 th century, the concept neurasthenia reached a high point and world-wide medical acceptance at the end of the 19 th/beginning of the 20 th century. However, between the 1930 s and 1960 s it declined in popularity and gradually disappeared until finally it only had a rudimentary nosological role in the term "pseudoneurasthenia". In the countries of the Far East, on the contrary, the concept of neurasthenia has been in continual use since its importation in the first decades of the last century. In the 1980 s, when an interest in the symptoms of chronic fatigue was reawakened in western medicine, the concept neurasthenia reappeared, this time to define the particular form of a neurotic disorder. Parallel to these developments increasing importance was attached to clinical descriptions of illnesses which on account of their similarity to the symptoms of neurasthenia could be termed modern variants of the concept neurasthenia. These are "Chronic-Fatigue-Syndrome", "Fibromyalgia" and "Multiple Chemical Sensitivities" which have more or less adopted the organic inheritance of Beard's former concept of neurasthenia, despite the fact that so far the question of organicity could not be decisively answered in a single case. In order to clarify possible influences on the development of the concept neurasthenia and its variants, the theories and ideas of E. Shorter, medical historian at the University of Toronto, are discussed in the final part of the article, whereby the particular cultural background in each case has a decisive influence on the manifestation of the psychosomatic symptoms.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".