Fibromyalgia Syndrome: Canadian Clinical Working Case Definition, Diagnostic and Treatment Protocols–A Consensus Document
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: There has been a growing recognition of the need for information about objective abnormalities in people with the fibromyalgia syndrome [FMS] and for an integrated approach to its diagnosis and management by primary care physicians.Objectives: To establish an expert consensus toward a working case definition of FMS and a working guide to its management for physicians in Canada.Methods: An Expert Subcommittee of Health Canada established the Terms of Reference and selected an Expert Medical Consensus Panel representing treating physicians, teaching faculty, and researchers. The editors prepared a draft document which was reviewed by the Panel members in preparation for the Consensus Workshop, which was held on March 30 to April 1, 2001. Subsequent writing assignments produced subdocuments on key topics relevant to the objectives. The subdocuments were then integrated into a submission document which was approved by each of the panel members.Results: The completed document is provided. It contains sections on a new approach to case definition, on proposed research to validate the new case definition, on a practical approach to assessment of severity, on empathetic management; and on what is known about pathogenesis.Conclusions: A consensus document was developed to assist clinicians in distinguishing FMS from other syndromes/illnesses that may present with body pain. It is intended that this document serve as a guide: to a better understanding of FMS; to a more reasoned approach to its management; and to further research on the clinical care of people with FMS.
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 | 0.112 | 0.148 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
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".