Primary and Secondary Fibromyalgia Are The Same: The Universality of Polysymptomatic Distress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Polysymptomatic distress (PSD) is the underlying metric of fibromyalgia (FM), and levels of PSD can identify criteria-positive FM with > 90% accuracy. We used levels of the PSD scale to test whether symptom levels in primary FM (PFM) and secondary FM (SFM) were the same and whether symptoms were equivalent in persons not meeting FM criteria. METHODS: We studied 1525 patients with a clinical diagnosis of FM and 12,037 patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We used regression models to compare patients with potential and actual PFM to RA patients with potential and actual SFM for 17 key clinical variables. RESULTS: When controlled for PSD values, the widespread pain index, symptom severity scale, and pain, global, quality of life, and physical and mental component scores were essentially the same or only slightly different in PFM and SFM. Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index scores were slightly higher in SFM (0.21 units), as was the painful joint count (1.6 joints). Overall, higher PSD scores were associated with more severe symptoms or abnormal status. PSD scores in patients not satisfying FM criteria and in patients satisfying criteria operated similarly. CONCLUSION: PFM and SFM are equivalent regarding symptom burden. PSD scores are more informative about severity and severity within diagnosis than dichotomization into FM/non-FM. Studies of FM versus "healthy individuals," or FM versus other diseases, are inherently defective, while studies of FM and PSD in RA offer the opportunity to have meaningful comparison groups, because there are no readily available unbiased appropriate controls for PFM.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".