Correlation of Fibromyalgia Survey Questionnaire and Quantitative Sensory Testing Among Patients With Active Rheumatoid Arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) commonly demonstrate disordered pain processing associated with high pain sensitization. Pain sensitization is often assessed using quantitative sensory testing (QST), which is burdensome to patients. The self-administered Fibromyalgia Survey Questionnaire (FSQ) has been proposed as a low-burden, surrogate measure of central pain sensitization. We examined the correlation between FSQ and QST in patients with active RA. METHODS: Participants in the Central Pain in Rheumatoid Arthritis (CPIRA) cohort underwent FSQ and QST evaluation at enrollment. QST measures included pressure pain threshold (PPT) at the thumb, trapezius, wrist, and knee; temporal summation (TS) at the wrist and arm; and conditioned pain modulation (CPM). Partial Spearman correlation between FSQ and each QST measure was assessed, adjusted for demographic factors, study site, disease characteristics, and pain catastrophizing. Sensitivity analyses included (1) stratified analysis by sex and (2) evaluation of how each component of FSQ associates with the QST measures. RESULTS: range = 0.13-0.15) at all sites in unadjusted analyses. After adjustment, statistically significant correlations persisted for TS at the wrist and PPT at all sites (except the thumb). Sensitivity analyses did not identify differences in association based on sex or with individual FSQ components. CONCLUSION: FSQ and QST were correlated among participants with active RA, but the strength of association was weak. QST and FSQ are not interchangeable measures of pain sensitization.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".