Functional somatic symptoms and their predictors in patients with major depressive disorder and fibromyalgia syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Despite being different medical conditions, functional somatic symptoms (FSSs) are common in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) and fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS). Higher levels of depression, anxiety, somatosensory amplification, hypochondriacal worry and alexithymia may be related to the severity of somatization in patients with MDD and FMS. We aimed to investigate the typology and severity of FSSs and the association between FSSs and these psychiatric symptoms in patients with MDD and FMS. Method: 56 MDD, 33 FMS, 21 CoMF (Comorbidity of MDD and FMS) patients, and 50 healthy participants were included in the study, respectively. Diagnosis of MDD and FMS was established according to DSM-IV-TR (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Revised Text), and ACR (American College of Rheumatology) 2010 diagnostic criteria. All participants were evaluated with self-report questionnaires including Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI), Somatosensory Amplification Scale (SSAS), Toronto Alexithymia Scale-20 (TAS-20), Whiteley Index-7 (WI-7), The Symptom Checklist-90-R (SCL-90-R) somatization subscale and Bradford Somatic Inventory-44 (BSI-44). Results: The severity of somatization was statistically significantly highest in the CoMF group, and similar in the FMS and MDD groups, and lowest in the control group according to the BSI-44 and SCL-90-R results. The typology of FSSs was quite similar in patients with MDD and FMS, and weakness, tiredness and neck pain were the most common FSSs in both groups. Independent predictors of FSSs were age, the severity of anxiety and alexithymia in the MDD group, however, it was only the severity of anxiety in the FMS group. Conclusions: Our results show that the typology and severity of FSSs are similar in MDD and FMS patients. Moreover, somatization appears to be more associated with anxiety in patients with MDD and FMS.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".