Automated Author ProfileLanciano, Tiziana
Lanciano, Tiziana
Current S-Index
Sum of Dataset Indices for all datasets
Average Dataset Index per Dataset
Average Dataset Index per dataset
Total Datasets
Total datasets for this author
Average FAIR Score
Average FAIR Score per dataset
Total Citations
Total citations to the author's datasets
Total Mentions
Total mentions of the author's datasets
S-Index Interpretation
The S-Index (Sharing Index) is a comprehensive metric that represents the cumulative impact of all your datasets. It is calculated as the sum of Dataset Index scores across all your claimed datasets.
What it means:
- A higher S-index indicates greater overall impact of your datasets relative to typical datasets in their fields of research
- The S-Index grows as you add more datasets or as existing datasets gain more citations and mentions
- It provides a single number to track your research data impact over time
Current S-Index: 1.3 (sum of 2 datasets Dataset Index scores)
More information here.
S-Index Over Time
Cumulative Citations Over Time
Cumulative Mentions Over Time
Datasets
The subjective nature of pain complicates objective verification, often leading to noncredible symptom reports in compensable settings. Across two studies, we evaluated the Italian Self-Report Symptom Inventory (SRSI-It) in distinguishing healthy individuals, simulators, and fibromyalgia patients. In Study 1, we assigned 958 participants to the honest (n = 482) or simulator group (n = 476). Simulators reported higher scores on genuine and pseudosymptoms. A cut score > 6 showed 92% specificity and 64% sensitivity; > 9 raised specificity to 95%. The SRSI-It identified 62% and 58% of simulators at > 6 and > 9, respectively, compared to 76% identified by the SIMS. In Study 2, we recruited 100 patients and paired each with a healthy control and a fibromyalgia simulator (N = 300). Simulators scored highest on pseudosymptoms, while patients scored higher than controls. The SRSI-It identified 73% and 61% of simulators at cut scores of > 6 and > 9, compared to 51% and 34% of patients and 15% and 13% of controls. The SRSI-It demonstrated sensitivity to simulated pain, suggesting its utility in distinguishing simulators from honest respondents in clinical and forensic settings. However, caution is warranted to avoid misclassifying genuine patients, highlighting the need for complementary tools.
Authors
- Ribatti, Raffaella Maria ;
- Merten, Thomas ;
- Lanciano, Tiziana ;
- Curci, Antonietta
The subjective nature of pain complicates objective verification, often leading to noncredible symptom reports in compensable settings. Across two studies, we evaluated the Italian Self-Report Symptom Inventory (SRSI-It) in distinguishing healthy individuals, simulators, and fibromyalgia patients. In Study 1, we assigned 958 participants to the honest (n = 482) or simulator group (n = 476). Simulators reported higher scores on genuine and pseudosymptoms. A cut score > 6 showed 92% specificity and 64% sensitivity; > 9 raised specificity to 95%. The SRSI-It identified 62% and 58% of simulators at > 6 and > 9, respectively, compared to 76% identified by the SIMS. In Study 2, we recruited 100 patients and paired each with a healthy control and a fibromyalgia simulator (N = 300). Simulators scored highest on pseudosymptoms, while patients scored higher than controls. The SRSI-It identified 73% and 61% of simulators at cut scores of > 6 and > 9, compared to 51% and 34% of patients and 15% and 13% of controls. The SRSI-It demonstrated sensitivity to simulated pain, suggesting its utility in distinguishing simulators from honest respondents in clinical and forensic settings. However, caution is warranted to avoid misclassifying genuine patients, highlighting the need for complementary tools.
Authors
- Ribatti, Raffaella Maria ;
- Merten, Thomas ;
- Lanciano, Tiziana ;
- Curci, Antonietta