Study of stress and vulnerability in patients with somatoform and dissociative disorders in a psychiatric clinic in North India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors compared perceived stress in subgroups of patients defined by vulnerability (high and low) and disorder (somatoform and dissociative). A total of 30 patients each of somatoform and dissociative disorders diagnosed according to the classification of mental and behavioral disorders criteria were assessed with Presumptive Stressful Life Event Scale, The Hassles Scale, Psychoticism Extraversion Neuroticism Inventory, Dissociative Experience Scale, Twenty-Item Toronto Alexithyma Scale, and Illness Behavior Questionnaire. Somatoform and dissociative disorder groups had comparable scores on measures of perceived stress and vulnerability. Two-way anova showed significant main effect of neuroticism (F = 13.65, d.f. = 1.56, P < 0.01), psychoticism (F = 7.92, d.f. = 1.56, P < 0.01), illness behavior (F = 5.82, d.f. = 1.56, P < 0.05), and dissociative experience (F = 8.45, d.f. = 1.56, P < 0.01) on total hassles score, but no significant main effect of disorder groups or interaction effect for disorder and vulnerability was seen on total hassles score. No significant main or interaction effect was seen on life events score. Similarities were seen in stress and vulnerability factors in the two disorders. Neuroticism, psychoticism, dissociative experience, and abnormal illness behavior were significantly related to stress (daily hassles) perceived by the patient, irrespective of the disorder.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".