The role of psychiatry in diagnosis and treatment of paediatric chronic fatigue syndrome – a scoping literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Paediatric Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (pCFS) is a common condition that significantly disrupts a healthy psychosocial development. Psychiatric symptoms associated with pCFS are conceptualized as either part of its complex etiology, its consequence, or as a comorbidity. However, patients with this condition are rarely seen by psychiatrists. This scoping review aims to explore the role of psychiatry in the diagnosis and treatment of pCFS. CONTENT: A scoping review of literature was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane and PsycINFO. Databases were searched for articles describing psychiatric involvement in the diagnosis or treatment of children and adolescents (age ≤ 18) with pCFS. A grey literature search was also conducted to identify additional guidelines and national recommendations to identify the role of psychiatry in the diagnosis and treatment of pCFS. SUMMARY: The search provided 436 articles of which 16 met inclusion criteria. Grey literature search identified 12 relevant guidelines. Most studies and guidelines did not include any psychiatric involvement in the care of patients with pCFS. If psychiatry was mentioned, it was used interchangeably with psychological interventions or in the context of treating distinct psychiatric comorbidities and suicidal ideation. OUTLOOK: The role of psychiatry in diagnosis and treatment of pCFS is poorly defined. Future research is required to understand how psychiatrists can contribute to the care of patients with pCFS.
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 | 0.008 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".