Pain Mystery Score Beliefs: A Comparison of Fibromyalgia and Rheumatoid Arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives. To compare the mysteriousness scores of the Pain Beliefs and Perceptions Inventory in fibromyalgia. Methods. Two cohorts of patients, one with fibromyalgia (FM) and one with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), completed the Mystery Scale component of the Pain Beliefs and Perceptions Inventory to determine whether subjects in the two diagnostic groups had significantly different scores on the Mystery Scale. Results. A total of 126 subjects (64 FM, 62 RA) completed all questionnaires. The FM group had a greater percentage of female subjects, more severe pain, more severe anxiety, more severe depression, and a higher perceived injustice score. When the RA and FM group scores for the Mystery Scale were adjusted for age, sex, pain severity, HADS scores, and perceived injustice scores, the FM group still had a higher Mystery Scale score. Discussion. Fibromyalgia is associated with a higher level of perception of mysteriousness in the Pain Beliefs and Perceptions Inventory than is seen with rheumatoid arthritis. This difference appears to be independent of levels of pain, depression, anxiety, and perceived injustice. This sense of mysteriousness may reflect a lack of understanding of pain in fibromyalgia as previously reported and may be an area to be addressed in therapy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".