Self-reported disability in women with fibromyalgia from a tertiary care center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS) 2.0 is a generic instrument to assess disability. Pain and psychological factors seem to play a pronounced disabling role in fibromyalgia (FM). There are few studies that investigate the factors associated with disability in patients with fibromyalgia from the patient's perspective. Information about FM disability using self-reported questionnaires is limited. This study aimed to assess the relationship between the ordinal response variable (degree of disability), and four explanatory variables: pain intensity, depression, anxiety, and alexithymia. METHODS: One hundred fifteen women with FM were enrolled in the cross-sectional study. For the assessment of disability the WHODAS 2.0 (36-item version) was used. Univariate and multivariate (ordinal logistic regression) analyses were performed to assess the relationship between pain (Visual Analogue Scale), depression and anxiety (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), alexithymia (Modified Toronto Alexithymia Scale) and disability. RESULTS: Disability was detected by global WHODAS score in 114 patients (99%), with the corresponding percentages for mild, moderate and severe disability being 11.3, 46.96 and 40.87%, respectively. Global WHODAS score was more severe among subjects with depression (50 vs 36.4, p < 0.001, effect size = 0.33) and alexithymia (50 vs 33.6, p < 0.001, effect size = 0.38). Pain intensity mean scores for mild, moderate and severe disability were 5.0, 6.1 and 7.3, respectively (p < 0.001, omega-squared = 0.12). Pain intensity explained the global disability degree and its domains except for the cognitive one. Whereas, depression explained cognitive and personal relation domains. On the other hand, alexithymia explained global disability degree and all domains of WHODAS 2.0 questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the patients with fibromyalgia perceived themselves with moderate to severe disability. The main explanatory variables of the perceived disability were the pain intensity and psychological factors (alexithymia and depression).
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".