MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118906416 · doi:10.1155/2014/593507

Pain Mystery Score Beliefs: A Comparison of Fibromyalgia and Rheumatoid Arthritis

2014· article· en· W2118906416 on OpenAlexaff
Robert Ferrari, Anthony S. Russell

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Rheumatology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFibromyalgiaRheumatoid arthritisMedicineAnxietyDepression (economics)Physical therapyHospital Anxiety and Depression ScaleInternal medicinePerceptionClinical psychologyPsychiatryPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.383
Threshold uncertainty score0.451

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.288 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of RheumatologySame topicFibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome ResearchFrench-language works237,207