Clustering a large Spanish sample of patients with fibromyalgia using the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire–Revised: differences in clinical outcomes, economic costs, inflammatory markers, and gray matter volumes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main objective of this study is to identify fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) clusters using the Revised Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQR), and to examine whether the clusters differ in sociodemographic characteristics, clinical measures, direct and indirect costs, levels of inflammatory markers, and brain morphometry. A hierarchical cluster analysis was performed to classify a large, pooled Spanish sample of patients with FMS (N = 947) using the FIQR as clustering variable. A latent profile analysis was subsequently conducted to confirm the optimal number of FMS clusters. To examine external validity, a battery of clinical measures, economic costs, inflammatory markers, and gray matter volumes of relevant cortical and subcortical areas were analyzed. We also compared the discriminant validity of the clusters with the original FIQR severity categories. To promote the implementation in real-world clinical practice, we built a free online cluster calculator. Our findings indicated that a four-cluster solution more clearly captured the heterogeneity of FIQR data and provided the best fit. This cluster solution allowed for detection of differences for most clinical outcomes and economic costs. Regarding the inflammatory and brain-based biomarkers, differences were found in C-reactive protein, and tendencies were found in the right medial prefrontal cortex, the right parahippocampal gyrus, and the right middle cingulate cortex; brain regions associated with executive functions and pain processing. The original FIQR categories presented similar results, although their precision in discriminating among the nonextreme categories (ie, moderate and severe) was not sound. These findings are discussed in relation to previous research on FMS clustering.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".