Chronic Widespread Pain in a tertiary pain clinic: classification overlap and use of a patient generated quality of life instrument
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and aims This study has two main aims: (1) To explore the overlap between classification criteria in patients with Chronic Widespread Pain (CWP) and (2) To explore the use of the Patient Generated Index (PGI) as a quality of life (QoL) measure in this patient group. Methods Patients with Widespread Pain (ICD-11: pain in four or more out of five bodily regions, i.e. the four quadrants and axially) in a tertiary pain outpatient clinic were assessed according to classification criteria for Fibromyalgia [FM, American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria of 1990, 2010, 2011 and 2016], Chronic Fatigue Syndrome [CFS, Fukuda, Canada and International Consensus Criteria (ICC)] and Bodily Distress Syndrome (BDS). Furthermore, patients completed the PGI to assess QoL, and electronic questionnaires including demographic variables and standardised patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Results All patients (n=33) fulfilled the criteria for musculoskeletal type single-organ BDS, 81.8% met the 2016 modified criteria for FM, 30.3% met the Canada criteria for CFS and 24.2% met the criteria for multi-organ type BDS. There was substantial agreement between the 2016 and the 2011 and 2010 criteria sets for FM compared to the 1990 criteria (κ=0.766 and 0.673 compared to 0.279). Patients generally scored low on the PGI, indicating poor QoL (mean PGI 28.9, SD 19.8, range 0-100). Conclusions Our findings support the use of the term musculoskeletal type single-organ BDS to describe patients with CWP and the 2016 revision of the FM criteria. The PGI provides useful clinical information which is not captured by standardised PROMs. Implications The terminology of CWP has become less ambiguous as the new ICD-11 is closely related to the generalised pain criterion of the modified 2016 FM definition. Studies based on the 1990 classification criteria for FM should not be directly compared to studies based on later criteria set. The PGI may be a supplement to other measurements to portray patients' individual concerns in patients with complex symptom disorders.
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 | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".