Fibromyalgia syndrome—a bodily distress disorder/somatic symptom disorder?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The debate addressing the classification of chronic widespread pain as a physical disorder (fibromyalgia syndrome) [FMS] or a somatoform disorder according to psychiatric classification systems has continued for decades. Objectives: The review aims to line out the new perspectives introduced by the 11th version of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD 11) of the World Health Organization (WHO). Methods: Critical review of the classification criteria of fibromyalgia syndrome and bodily distress disorder in ICD 11. Results: Fibromyalgia syndrome has been eliminated from the chapter of diseases of the musculoskeletal system and is now included in a chapter "Symptoms, signs, clinical forms, and abnormal clinical and laboratory findings, not elsewhere classified". Previously, the ICD-10 diagnosis of somatoform disorder was often used by mental health care disciplines instead of the label FMS. Somatoform disorders category has been eliminated as a diagnostic category in the ICD-11 and the 5th version Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and has been replaced with the new categories of bodily distress disorder (BDD) and somatic symptom disorder (SSD) respectively. For diagnosis, these latter mental disorders require at least one distressing somatic symptom (e.g. pain) plus positive psychobehavioral criteria, namely "excessive thoughts, feelings, or behaviours related to the somatic symptoms or associated health concerns", without the condition that distressing somatic symptoms have to be medically unexplained. Conclusion: We argue that the psychobehavioral criteria of BDD/SSD are imprecisely defined and can be misinterpreted as for "Excessive health concerns" which may occur due to the many uncertainties surrounding FMS or "Excessive time devoted to the symptoms" which may be related to patient self-management strategies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".