Clinical Phenomenology of Fibromyalgia Syndrome in male patients - Same but Different.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The majority of knowledge about fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) derives from studies of female patients. Little is known about the clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes of male FMS patients. Objective We investigated whether male FMS patients differ from female patients in terms of 1.) symptom burden, 2.) psychological characteristics, and 3.) clinical treatment response. Methods For this retrospective cohort study with a prospective posttreatment-follow-up, we identified 263 male (4%) out of 5,541 FMS patients completing a three-week multimodal pain-treatment program. Male FMS patients (51.3±9.1 years) were age- and time-matched (1:4) with female FMS patients (N = 1052, 51.3±9.0 years). Data on clinical characteristics, psychological comorbidities and treatment response were obtained from medical records and validated questionnaires. Results Levels of perceived pain, psychological comorbidity, and functional capacity were similar between genders, although male FMS patients showed a higher prevalence for alcohol abuse. Compared to female patients, male FMS patients experienced themselves less often as overly accommodating (Cohen’s d=-0.42), but more often as self-sacrificing (d = 0.26) or intrusive (d = 0.23). Regarding pain coping, male patients were less likely to utilize mental distraction, rest- and relaxation techniques, or counteractive activities (d = 0.18–0.27). Male FMS patients showed a slightly worse overall response rate than women (69% vs. 77%), although differences between individual outcome measures were small (d < 0.2). Conclusion Although male and female FMS patients in our cohort were similar in clinical presentation and treatment response, the gender-specific differences in interpersonal problems and pain coping suggest a consideration of these aspects in the treatment of male FMS patients.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".