Studying ICD-11 Primary Health Care bodily stress syndrome in Brazil: do many functional disorders represent just one syndrome?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Disorders characterized by "distressing unexplained somatic symptoms" are challenging. In the ICD-11 Primary Health Care (PHC) Guidelines for Diagnosis and Management of Mental Disorders (ICD-11 PHC), a new category, bodily stress syndrome (BSS), was included to diagnose patients presenting unexplained somatic symptoms. The present study investigated the association of BSS with anxiety, depression, and four subgroups of physical symptoms in a Brazilian primary health care (PHC) sample. METHODOLOGY: As part of the international ICD-11 PHC study, 338 patients were evaluated by their primary care physicians, followed by testing with Clinical Interview Schedule (CIS-R) and World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule, Version 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0). BSS was diagnosed in the presence of at least three somatic symptoms associated with incapacity. The association between anxiety, depression, and four subgroups of physical symptoms with being a BSS case was analyzed. RESULTS: The number of somatic symptoms was high in the overall sample of 338 patients (mean = 8.4), but even higher in the 131 BSS patients (10.2; p < 0.001). Most BSS patients (57.3%) had at least three symptoms from two, three, or four subgroups, and these were associated with anxiety and depression in 80.9% of these patients. The symptom subgroup most strongly associated with "being a BSS" case was the non-specific group (OR = 6.51; 95%CI 1.65-24.34), followed by musculoskeletal (OR = 2,31; 95%CI 1.19-4.72). CONCLUSION: Somatic symptoms were frequent in a sample of PHC patients in Brazil. In the present sample, one third were BSS cases and met the criteria for at least two symptom subgroups, supporting the hypothesis that different functional symptoms are related to each other.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".