Clinical Heterogeneity in ME/CFS. A Way to Understand Long-COVID19 Fatigue
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of present paper is to identify clinical phenotypes in a cohort of patients affected of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. Ninety-one patients and 22 healthy controls were studied with the following questionnaires, in addition to medical history: visual analogical scale for fatigue and pain, DePaul questionnaire (post-exertional malaise, immune, neuroendocrine), Pittsburgh sleep quality index, COMPASS-31 (dysautonomia), Montreal cognitive assessment, Toulouse-Piéron test (attention), Hospital Anxiety and Depression test and Karnofsky scale. Co-morbidities and drugs-intake were also recorded. A hierarchical clustering with clinical results was performed. Final study group was made up of 84 patients, mean age 44.41 ± 9.37 years (66 female/18 male) and 22 controls, mean age 45 ± 13.15 years (14 female/8 male). Patients meet diagnostic criteria of Fukuda-1994 and Carruthers-2011. Clustering analysis identify five phenotypes. Two groups without fibromyalgia were differentiated by various levels of anxiety and depression (13 and 20 patients). The other three groups present fibromyalgia plus a patient without it, but with high scores in pain scale, they were segregated by prevalence of dysautonomia (17), neuroendocrine (15), and immunological affectation (19). Regarding gender, women showed higher scores than men in cognition, pain level and depressive syndrome. Mathematical tools are a suitable approach to objectify some elusive features in order to understand the syndrome. Clustering unveils phenotypes combining fibromyalgia with varying degrees of dysautonomia, neuroendocrine or immune features and absence of fibromyalgia with high or low levels of anxiety-depression. There is no a specific phenotype for women or men.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".