SP448THE “EMPATHIC RELATIONSHIP": A USEFUL TOOL FOR IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF LIVE IN HEMODIALYSIS PATIENTS? OUR EXPERIENCE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction and Aims: In the management of chronic kidney disease is increasingly directed attention to an "patient centered" approach. According to a pronouncement of the WHO antithetical dualism health/disease assumes multidimensional importance and incorporates various aspects of functionality and wellness, not only from a physical, but also on the psychological, emotional and social areas. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study on 148 uremic chronic hemodialysis patients, offering the performance of some contemporary self-report on the assessment of the quality of life related to health (QoL-S). We divided the subjects into three distinct groups according to the degree of "empathic harmony" reached with the "team physician": (1) high; (2) average and (3) low. The texts given, chosen on the basis of their wide dissemination in the common practice of psycho-behavioral evaluation, were as follows: 1) TAS 20 (Toronto Alexthymia Scale) to measure alexithymia, (2) Shaps (Snaith-Hamilton Pleasure Scale) for the measurement dell'anedonia, (3) (SASS Social Adaptation Self-evalutation Scale) for the measurement of social adaptation, (4) STAI (State Trait Ansiety inventory) for the measurement of anxiety, (5) HLC (Locus of Control Scale) to measure locus of control, (6) SF-36 and NHP (Nottingham Healt Profile) for the measurement of health status/quality of life, (7) COPE (Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced) and (8) PSS (Perceived Stress Scale) for measuring the perceived stress. The 90% of our hemodialysis patients immediately accepted the proposal to submit to the administration of the questionnaires with attitude "positive" and "participated". For the remaining 10% that was not able to give an active or had not shown spontaneous interest in participating in the study has been neglected to solicit membership. Data were analyzed using statistical methods.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".