Fibromyalgia: Mucosal-Associated Invariant T Cell Is a Potential Marker

[aimossy]

Mucosal-Associated Invariant T Cell Is a Potential Marker to Distinguish Fibromyalgia Syndrome from Arthritis

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0121124#pone-0121124-g003

Background
Fibromyalgia (FM) is defined as a widely distributed pain. While many rheumatologists and pain physicians have considered it to be a pain disorder, psychiatry, psychology, and general medicine have deemed it to be a syndrome (FMS) or psychosomatic disorder. The lack of concrete structural and/or pathological evidence has made patients suffer prejudice that FMS is a medically unexplained symptom, implying inauthenticity. Furthermore, FMS often exhibits comorbidity with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or spondyloarthritis (SpA), both of which show similar indications. In this study, disease specific biomarkers were sought in blood samples from patients to facilitate objective diagnoses of FMS, and distinguish it from RA and SpA.

Conclusions
Combined with the currently available diagnostic procedures and criteria, analysis of MAIT cells offers a more objective standard for the diagnosis of FMS, RA, and SpA, which exhibit multifaceted and confusingly similar clinical manifestations.

 

[aimossy]

This isn't ME/CFS research and I had an ME moment about where to put this thread. I should have put it in the "other research" section. I can't delete this now. Dear @Kina or @Sushi you might wish to move the thread. Sorry.

 

[Sushi]

Dear @Kina or @Sushi you might wish to move the thread. Sorry.

Brain fog strikes again! I moved it.

 

[aimossy]

Thank you!! @Sushi

 

[aimossy]

Not sure what I make of this paper at all, but felt it should be flagged up.
@Jonathan Edwards you might be interested in seeing if this is up to scratch or interesting. I haven't read it properly, only skimmed.

 

[Jonathan Edwards]

Not sure what I make of this paper at all, but felt it should be flagged up.
@Jonathan Edwards you might be interested in seeing if this is up to scratch or interesting. I haven't read it properly, only skimmed.

It seems to be a jumble to me. In relation to the recent thread on the poor quality of scientific papers one has to ask how this paper got through peer review - just in terms of data presentation. The authors do not seem to have much clue about the diseases they are studying either. I could not work out what the interesting result was, to be honest.

 

[aimossy]

Thanks @Jonathan Edwards
I have read it a wee bit more and it just gets more confusing the more you read. It has some of those broadbrush statements that red flag me and I was struggling with clarity regarding the data re the "jumble". I was a bit wary because even with my limited knowledge I can usually make more sense of what is going on within a paper and it's all over the show. I thought you might spot fast if it had some really good merits in there.