Emotion Risk-Factor in Patients with Cardiac Diseases: The Role of Cognitive Emotion Regulation Strategies, Positive Affect and Negative Affect (A Case-Control Study)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Application of psychological interventions is essential in classic treatments for patient with cardiac diseases. The present study compared cognitive emotion regulation strategies, positive affect, and negative affect for cardiac patients with healthy subjects. This study was a case-control study. Fifty subjects were selected using convenient sampling method from cardiac (coronary artery disease) patients presenting in Imam Ali medical center of Kermanshah, Iran in the spring 2013. Fifty subjects accompanied the patients to the medical center, selected as control group, did not have any history of cardiac diseases. For collecting data, the cognitive emotion regulation questionnaire and positive and negative affect scales were used. For data analysis, multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) Was applied using the SPSS statistical software (ver. 19.0). In all cognitive emotion regulation strategies, there was a significant difference between the two groups. A significant difference was also detected regarding positive affect between the two groups, but no significant difference was found regarding negative affect. We found as a result that, having poor emotion regulation strategies is a risk factor for developing heart diseases.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".