The emerging challenge of pain in systemic sclerosis: Similarity to the pain experience reported by Sjőgren’s syndrome patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to evaluate the importance of pain in systemic sclerosis (SSc), the characteristics of pain reported by patients with SSc were analyzed and compared with the characteristics of pain reported by patients with primary Sjőgren's syndrome (pSS). Pain was reported by 56 patients (80%) in a group of 70 patients with SSc and by 25 patients (78%) in a group of 32 patients with pSS. Pain severity was assessed by the Pain Rating Index (PRI) and the Present Pain Intensity (PPI) of the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) and by values obtained by a visual analog scale (VAS) indicating the intensity of pain felt in the moment of the examination and the intensity of pain felt in the week preceding the moment of the examination. No significant difference was detected in the comparison of mean values of pain indices between patients with SSc and patients with pSS and in the comparison among subgroups of patients with SSc. The data indicate that pain is a frequent and important cause of suffering in SSc as in other chronic diseases. The association of different methods may be especially useful to obtain a careful evaluation of pain in clinical research.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".