MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2315144276 · doi:10.5505/agri.2015.67044

Are Fibromyalgia and Failed Back Surgery Syndromes actually “Functional Somatic Syndrome” in terms of symptomatological, familial and psychological characteristics? A comparative study with chronic medical illness and healthy controls

2015· article· en· W2315144276 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Burak Duruk

Bibliographic record

VenueAğrı - The Journal of The Turkish Society of Algology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlexithymiaMedicineFibromyalgiaSomatizationToronto Alexithymia ScaleChronic painPhysical therapyDepression (economics)Beck Depression InventoryPsychiatryClinical psychologyAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate whether Fibromyalgia and Failed Back Surgery Syndromes (FMS-FBSS) may be evaluated under the single heading of Functional Somatic Syndromes (FSS) with respect to their symptomatological characteristics such as intensity, frequency, age of onset, duration, painful areas, fear of pain, and pain coping styles; familial characteristics such as family history of chronic medical illness, psychopathology and pain; and psychological characteristics such as manner of dealing with pain, fear of pain, alexithymia, symptom interpretation, somatosensory amplification and depression. METHODS: The study comprised 150 individuals, separated into 3 groups; The FSS Group comprised 47 patients who were referred to the Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Clinic at Istanbul University's Faculty of Medicine with FMS (n=35) and FBSS (n=12), the healthy control group (HC Group) comprised 47 individuals, and the chronic medical illness control group (CMIC Group) was made up of 56 individuals. Turkish versions of the Toronto Alexithymia Scale, Symptom Attribution Inventory, Somatosensory Amplification Scale and Beck Depression Inventory, along with a semi-structured form questioning general health, pain and demographics were administered to all participants. RESULTS: FMS and FBSS participants (FSS Group) did not differ as a function of the major familial, symptomatological and clinical features considered in this study. Additionally, this group significantly differed from the HC and CMIC Groups with respect to almost all these features. CONCLUSION: This study is Important Insofar as it simultaneously evaluated FMS and FBSS groups in the presence of a control group. The results suggest that FMS and FBSS, currently treated as two different diagnostic categories in general medical practice, may be evaluated under the single heading of FSS.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAğrı - The Journal of The Turkish Society of AlgologySame topicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207