Clinical Features and Variations of Pain Expressions in 834 Burning Mouth Syndrome Patients With or Without Psychiatric Comorbidities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Burning mouth syndrome (BMS) is characterized as chronic burning pain or unpleasant discomfort in the oral region without any corresponding clinical abnormalities. The aim of this study is to investigate the difference in clinical features and the variations of pain expressions between BMS patients with and without psychiatric comorbidities. Methodology The patients with BMS who first visited between April 2016 and March 2020 were involved and the clinical data including the presence of psychiatric comorbidities and scores of self-rating depression scale (SDS), pain catastrophizing scale (PCS), and pain quality from short-form McGill pain questionnaire (SF-MPQ) were collected retrospectively. Results In 834 patients with BMS (700 females, 63.9 ± 13.1 years old), 371 patients (44.5%) had psychiatric comorbidities. There was no significant between-group difference in demographic data. However, significantly higher scores were observed in SDS (p < 0.001) and PCS (p < 0.001) in the patients with psychiatric comorbidities. Moreover, the patients with psychiatric comorbidities showed significantly stronger pain intensity (p < 0.001) besides higher scores of each descriptor in SF-MPQ. In addition, they had chosen more descriptors in SF-MPQ (p < 0.001); furthermore, the number of selected pain descriptors showed a stronger correlation with PCS than with SDS regardless of the presence of psychiatric comorbidities. Conclusion BMS patients may complain of various pain expressions regardless of the psychiatric comorbidities; however, more severe complaints relating to high pain catastrophizing are more likely in patients with psychiatric comorbidities. These results suggested that underlying anxiety exacerbated the variety of pain expressions in BMS patients with psychiatric comorbidities.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".