Jason Leonard A, Kot Bobby, Sunnquist Madison, Brown Abigail, Reed Jordan, Furst Jacob, Newton Julia L, Strand Elin Bolle, Vernon Suzanne D
DePaul University, Chicago, Illinois.
Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK.
Fatigue. 2014 Apr 1;3(2):63-74. doi: 10.1080/21641846.2015.1017344. Epub 2015 Aug 26.
Since the publication of the CFS case definition [1], there have been a number of other criteria proposed including the Canadian Consensus Criteria [2] and the Myalgic Encephalomyelitis: International Consensus Criteria. [3].
The current study compared these domains that were developed through consensus methods to one obtained through more empirical approaches using factor analysis.
Using data mining, we compared and contrasted fundamental features of consensus-based criteria versus empirical latent factors. In general, these approaches found the domain of Fatigue/Post-exertional malaise as best differentiating patients from controls.
Findings indicated that the Fukuda et al. criteria had the worst sensitivity and specificity.
These outcomes might help both theorists and researchers better determine which fundamental domains to be used for the case definition.
自慢性疲劳综合征（CFS）病例定义公布以来[1]，已经提出了许多其他标准，包括加拿大共识标准[2]和肌痛性脑脊髓炎：国际共识标准[3]。
本研究将通过共识方法制定的这些领域与通过因子分析等更实证方法获得的领域进行了比较。
利用数据挖掘，我们对基于共识的标准与实证潜在因素的基本特征进行了比较和对比。总体而言，这些方法发现疲劳/运动后不适领域最能区分患者与对照组。
研究结果表明，福田等人的标准敏感性和特异性最差。
这些结果可能有助于理论家和研究人员更好地确定用于病例定义的基本领域。
