LAST SENTENCE: "Since maladaptive personality is not specific to CFS, it might be associated with illness per se rather than with a specific condition."
So why go through the whole spiel about how crazy CFIDS people are if the final sentence refutes the whole rest of the paper??? Did I read this sentence correctly? Is this some sort of CYA just in case sentence?
These people are so crazy it scares me. And they are allowed to walk the streets with normal people....
Exactly. Why write the paper at all? The title implies that personality disorders exist in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. The second sentence states "Personality may be a risk factor for CFS..." The final sentence implies that "maladaptive personality" exists in CFS, but is not in any way an identifying feature and that "illness" (meaning any illness?) is associated with "maladaptive personality".
I'm trying to sort out this weasel-wordiness....

Are they saying that illness, just
illness, is associated with "maladaptive personality"? Are cancer, MS, flu, HIV, and/or colds associated with "maladaptive personality"? Doesn't this sound a bit like "Sick people are a pain in the @$$"?
Are they saying that CFS patients have "maladaptive personality", but so do many other ill people? If so, what's the news about CFS --that we're part of the "ill" population?
Please, someone with expertise in word-crafting, explain the connection of these parts to the whole. And if you could explain the actual
point -- what it is we're supposed to take away from this paper, I would greatly appreciate your effort.
Title:
"Personality Features and Personality Disorders in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: A Population-Based Study"
First sentences of abstract:
"Background: Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) presents unique diagnostic and management challenges. Personality may be a risk factor for CFS and may contribute to the maintenance of the illness."
Last sentence of abstract:
"Since maladaptive personality is not specific to CFS, it might be associated with illness per se rather than with a specific condition."
BTW, who published this BS?