Psychosomatic syndromes and traumatic events discriminate between patients with fibromyalgia and patients with rheumatoid arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Many studies have highlighted the importance of the psychological component in fibromyalgia (FM), although the underlying implications are not yet clear. Objectives. The current study aims to assess the prevalence of psychosomatic syndromes and traumatic events in patients with FM and patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA), and to evaluate their group membership (FM vs. RA) predictive abilities. Methods. The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain, the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-Y), the Beck Depression Inventory - II (BDI-II), the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20), the Traumatic Experiences Checklist (TEC) and the Diagnostic Criteria for Psychosomatic Research (DCPR) were administered to 107 women with FM and 104 with RA. Results. Group comparison showed that patients with FM had significantly higher levels of anxiety and depressive symptoms and difficulties in identifying feelings (TAS-DIF subscale) and a higher prevalence of psychosomatic syndromes and traumatic events, compared to patients with RA. The binary logistic regression showed that pain (OR=0.584; 95% CI=4.74 -0 .719), psychosomatic syndromes (OR=0.596; 95% CI=0 .459-0.773) and trauma score (OR=0.859; 95% CI=0.759-0.971) were statistically significant predictors of group membership (FM vs. RA). The final model explained 62% of the variance, with 83.3% of patients correctly classified. Conclusion. The present study confirmed the higher prevalence of psychosomatic syndromes and trauma events in patients with FM compared to patients with RA, further supporting their role in FM symptoms exacerbation and maintenance and thus their importance in the treatment planning.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".