Anxiety and depression in chronic hemodialysis: some somatopsychic determinants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Depression and anxiety are so common in hemodialysis (HD) patients that we found it useful to study the respective contributions of the subjective somatic sensations and of the objective medical comorbidity to psychological distress. We also hypothesized that denial has a protective effect against anxiety and depression, and that alexithymia is, on the contrary, a risk factor. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In a cross-sectional design, we investigated relationships between psychological distress and somatic complaints, Charlson comorbidity index, denial and alexithymia, in a group of 54 patients on incenter HD. They filled psychometric self-rated questionnaires in (State Anxiety Inventory, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, 13-item Short Beck Depression Inventory, Kidney Disease Quality of Life Short Form, 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale). A principal component analysis allowed us to focus on HADS-total score, which was confirmed to be representative of anxio-depression. Then, correlational analyses and a stepwise regression analysis were performed. RESULTS: HADS-total score is inversely associated with the use of denial as a psychological defence mechanism (p < 0.001), and positively correlated with difficulties in identifying emotions (p < 0.001), with difficulties in expressing feelings (p < 0.05), and with the intensity of subjective somatic complaints (p < 0.001). On the contrary, it is not related to the somatic comorbidity. In the stepwise regression, the somatic complaints, the denial and the difficulties in recognizing emotions emerge as the three main variables related to the HADS-total score (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Subjective physical complaints are here associated with psychological distress in chronic HD patients, while objective organic comorbidity does not seem to influence their mood and anxiety status. Denial is an efficient coping style against negative emotions, but it can diminish compliance. So, the subjective perception of the disease seems to have an important impact on the anxiety and mood levels, which can also be influenced by the emotional regulation abilities.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".