Psychological evolution and assessment in patients undergoing orthotopic heart transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT) is a major surgical intervention inducing distress and anxiety. Psychiatric evaluation of organ transplant candidates is now routinely proposed. This study purposed to assess the psychological evolution in patients having received psychological and/or psychiatric assistance before and during 1-6 postoperative months. METHODS: Twenty-two consecutive transplant candidates were psychically evaluated as part of the preoperative protocol. In the waiting period, 1 and 6 months after OHT, they were asked to fill out the following questionnaires: the General Health Questionnaire, the Spielberger's State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, the Beck Depression Inventory, the Perceived Social Support Scale, the Toronto Alexithymia Scale and the Personal Reaction Inventory. RESULTS: A DSM-IV Axis I diagnosis was found in nine patients (41%); four patients (18%) presented with an Axis II diagnosis. One month after OHT, scores of depression, anxiety and general health significantly improved, while scores of social support, alexithymia and social desirability did not differ. In the sixth postoperative month, all psychological scores remained stable. CONCLUSIONS: A high prevalence of preoperative psychopathology was reported in 22 candidates who received OHT. Surgical intervention obviously improved the quality of life after cardiac transplantation. If the impact of psychological and/or psychiatric aid remains difficult to appraise, these results emphasize the positive impact of surgery on psychological status and the appropriateness of the psychosomatician's social support intervention on patients facing the transplant process.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".