Stressful life events in fibromyalgia: a case-control study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. The aim of the study was to evaluate the prevalence of traumatic events in a group of patients with Fibromyalgia (FM), compared to patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA), and to investigate its association with the clinical and psychological variables. \nMaterials and Methods. Two groups of 101 women with FM and 101 women with RA, matched for age and years of education, were assessed with: Traumatic Experiences Checklist (TEC), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) and the SF-36 for the health-related quality of life (HRQoL). \nResults. FM patients reported significantly higher levels of pain, anxiety and depressive symptoms and a lower HRQoL compared to RA patients (all p <0.001). Regarding alexithymia, FM patients showed higher difficulties in identify feelings compared to RA patients (p <0.001). \nData on the traumatic experiences highlighted a significantly higher number of negative life events in FM (TEC – total score) and a significant higher global impact (TEC - composite score), compared to RA patients (p <0.001). In particular, 57.4% FM vs 22.8% RA patients reported the presence of emotional neglect, and 50.5% FM vs 15.8% RA patients reported the presence of emotional abuse. However, in FM patients, the presence of traumatic experiences seems not to have a direct relationship nor on the clinical neither on the psychological distress variables. \nConclusion. The present study revealed a higher prevalence of lifetime trauma in FM patients compared to RA patients. Furthermore, FM patients showed greater impairment in the ability to identify their own emotions. \nNevertheless, the higher prevalence of traumatic experiences seems not to have a direct relation with FM symptoms, although FM patients had a worst quality of life and higher pain and psychological distress compared to the RA 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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".