A Comparative Evaluation of the 2011 and 2016 Criteria for Fibromyalgia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In 2016, a revised version of the 2010 American College of Rheumatology fibromyalgia (FM) criteria and the 2011 self-report (survey) FM criteria were published. The 2016 criteria preserved the distinction between physician and patient criteria, but made the individual criteria items identical, added a "generalized pain" criterion, and changed ascertainment and scoring methods, among other changes. In this study, we evaluated diagnostic differences relating to 2016 changes. METHODS: We used the National Data Bank for Rheumatic Diseases and evaluated 16,987 participants with painful rheumatic disorders using the 2011 and 2016 methodologies. RESULTS: There were 4731 patients (27.9%) who satisfied the 2011 criteria and 4077 (24.0%) the 2016 revision. This resulted in agreement in 96.2% of cases and disagreement in 3.9%. All disagreements occurred in the 4731 2011-positive cases who failed to meet the 2016 criteria. This result came about because 654 (13.8%) of the 2011-positive cases failed to meet the new generalized pain requirement. When using the approximate polysymptomatic distress diagnostic method, diagnostic misclassification ranged between 7% and 13%. CONCLUSION: The 2016 FM criteria further refined and increased the usefulness of symptom-based diagnosis of FM by excluding patients with regional pain syndromes. However, these changes, useful as they are, underscore the social construction of symptom-based diagnosis and the inherent limitations in reliability and validity associated with FM criteria.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".