MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2980272508 · doi:10.1515/sjpain-2019-0054

Revised chronic widespread pain criteria: development from and integration with fibromyalgia criteria

2019· article· en· W2980272508 on OpenAlex
Frederick Wolfe, Stephen H. Butler, Mary‐Ann Fitzcharles, Winfried Häuser, Robert L. Katz, Philip J. Mease, Johannes J. Rasker, Anthony S. Russell, I. Jon Russell, Brian Walitt

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueScandinavian Journal of Pain · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFibromyalgiaMedicineRheumatologyEpidemiologyPhysical therapyChronic painInternal medicineMusculoskeletal painDistressPain medicinePsychiatryClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and aims Persons with chronic widespread pain (CWP) have poor medical outcomes and increased mortality. But there are no universally accepted criteria for CWP or of methods to assess it. The most common criteria come from the 1990 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) fibromyalgia (FM) criteria, but that method (WP1990) can identify CWP with as few as three pain sites, and in subjects with wide differences in illness severity. Recently, to correct WP1990 deficiencies, the 2016 fibromyalgia criteria provided a modified CWP definition (WP2016) by dividing the body into five regions of three pain sites each and requiring a minimum of four regions of pain. Although solving the geographic problem of pain distribution, the problem of just how many pain sites (pain diffuseness) are required remained a problem, as WP2016 required as few as four painful sites. To better characterize CWP, we compared four CWP definitions with respect to symmetry, extent of pain sites and association with clinical severity variables. Methods We characterized pain in 40,960 subjects, including pain at 19 individual sites and five pain regions, and calculated the widespread pain index (WPI) and polysymptomatic distress scales (PDS) from epidemiology, primary care and rheumatology databases. We developed and evaluated a new definition for CWP, (WP2019), defined as pain in four or five regions and a pain site score of at least seven of 15 sites. We also tested a definition based on the number of painful sites (WPI ≥ 7). Results In rheumatology patients, WP1990 and WPI ≥ 7 classified patients with <4 regions as WSP. CWP was noted in 51.3% by WP1990, 41.7% by WP2016, 37.6% of WPI ≥ 7 and 33.9% by WP2019. 2016 FM criteria was satisfied in WP1990 (51.1%), WP2016 (63.3%), WPI ≥ 7 (69.0%) and WP2019 (76.6%). WP2019 positive patients had more severe clinical symptoms compared with WP1990, WP2016 and WPI ≥ 7, and similar to but less than FM 2016 positive patients. In stepwise fashion, scores for functional disability, visual analog scale fatigue and pain, WPI, polysymptomatic distress score and Patient Health Questionnaire 15 (PHQ-15) worsened from WP1990 through WP2016, WPI ≥ 7 and WP2019. Conclusions WP2019 combines the high WPI scores of WPI ≥ 7 and the symmetry of WP2016, and is associated with the most abnormal clinical scores. The WP1990 does not appear to be an effective measure. We suggest that CWP can be better defined by combining 4-region pain and a total pain site score ≥7 (WP2019). This definition provides a simple, unambiguous measure that is suitable for clinical and research use as a standalone diagnosis that is integrated with fibromyalgia definitions. Implications Definitions of CWP in research and clinic care are arbitrary and have varied, and different definitions of CWP identify different sets of patients, making a universal interpretation of CWP uncertain. In addition, CWP is a mandatory component of some fibromyalgia criteria. Our study provides quantitative data on the differences between CWP definitions and their criteria, allowing better understanding of research results and a guide to the use of CWP in clinical care.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.556
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it