The Correlation of Pain, Psychological Aspects, and Sleep in Fibromyalgia: A Cross-Sectional Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This pilot study measures pain perception, somatosensory amplification and its relationship to health anxiety in patients with fibromyalgia (FM) and patients with FM and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA); this study also examines the effects of OSA on pain perception in patients with FM. Methods: In this pilot study, patients diagnosed with FM or FM and OSA, completed three self-reported questionnaires: Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), Somatosensory Amplification Scale (SSAS), and Illness Behavior Questionnaire (IBQ). Sleep study results were analyzed. Scores were summarized using medians and interquartile ranges and are compared using Wilcoxon rank sum tests. Results: Overall FM (n = 25), female n=23 male n=3 mean age, 57.48 years. OSA n=17 (68%) and 8 (32%) were not. The SF-MPQ Sensory sub-scale scores and the SF-MPQ overall scores differed significantly between patients with and without OSA. The SF-MPQ Sensory sub-scale scores were significantly lower for patients with OSA (p=0.03), as were SF-MPQ overall scores (p=0.04). SSAS overall scores and IBQ overall scores did not differ significantly by OSA diagnosis. Correlations of the different dimensions of IBQ with SSAS and mean number of diagnoses in FM and FM+OSA, mean number of diagnoses in problem list of SSAS ≤30 was 29.5, mean number of diagnoses in SSAS ≥30 was 34.9. Discussion: Developing a better understanding of the effects of OSA on pain perception in patients with FM is needed for improved health status. More research is needed to see if higher pain perception and SSAS score lead to increased health care utilization and to evaluate the relationship between untreated disordered sleeping and pain perception in patients with FM. Conclusion: Our findings highlight the need for more research to evaluate the relationship between treated and untreated disordered sleeping, pain perception, somatization and illness behavior in the health status of individuals with FM.
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 | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".