Effect of a Symptom Diary on Symptom Frequency and Intensity in Healthy Subjects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Symptom and pain diaries are often recommended to or used by patients with chronic pain disorders. Our objective was to examine the effect on recall of symptoms after 14 days of daily symptom diary use in healthy subjects. METHOD: Subjects were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups: the diary group and the control group. Both subject groups completed an initial symptom checklist composed of headache, neck pain, back pain, fatigue, abdominal pain, elbow pain, jaw pain, and numbness/tingling in arms or legs. Both groups indicated their symptom frequency and their perceived average symptom severity in the last 14 days. The diary group was asked then to examine the symptom checklist daily for 14 days while the control group was not. After 2 weeks, both groups then repeated the symptom checklist for recall of symptoms and symptom severity. RESULTS: A total 35 of 40 initially recruited subjects completed all the questionnaires, 18 in the diary group and 17 in the control group. At the outset, both groups had similar frequencies and intensities of symptoms. After 2 weeks of symptom diary use, diary group subjects had an increased frequency (doubled) of recalled symptoms, and significantly increased intensity of symptoms compared with the control group, which had not changed its mean frequency or intensity of symptoms. CONCLUSION: The use of a symptom diary for 2 weeks, even in generally healthy subjects, results in increased recall of daily symptoms and increased perception of symptom severity.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".