Programmed Symptoms: Disparate Effects United by Purpose
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Central sensitivity syndromes (CSS) share features of similar multiple symptoms, virtually unknown mechanisms and lack of effective treatments. The CSS nomenclature was chosen over alternatives because it focused on a putative physiological mechanism of central sensitization common to disorders such as fibromyalgia, irritable bowel syndrome, vulvodynia and temporomandibular disorder. Increasing evidence from multiple biological systems suggests a further development. In this new model central sensitization is part of a ensemble that includes also the symptoms of widespread pain, fatigue, unrefreshing sleep and dyscognition. The main feature is an intrinsic program that produces this ensemble to guide behavior to restore normal function in conditions that threaten survival. The well known "illness response" is a classic example that is triggered in response to the specific threat of viral infection. The major leap for this model in the context of CSS is that the symptom complex is not a reactive result of pathology, but a purposeful feeling state enlisted to combat pathology. Once triggered, this state is produced by potential mechanisms that likely include contributions of the peripheral and central immune systems, as well as stress response systems such as the autonomic system and the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis. These act in concert to alter behavior in a beneficial direction. This concept explains similar symptoms for many triggering conditions, the poorly understood pathology, and the resistance to treatment.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".