MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999969334 · doi:10.1159/000286636

Psychosomatic Aspects in Myocardial Infarction in Comparison with Angina Pectoris

2010· review· en· W1999969334 on OpenAlexaff
M Dongier

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychotherapy and Psychosomatics · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Health and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMyocardial infarctionPsychodynamicsAnginaPersonalityInfarctionPsychologyCardiologyAnxietyCoronary heart diseaseMedicinePsychiatryInternal medicinePsychotherapistPsychoanalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although there are opinions to the contrary, the literature provides fairly convincing evidence that some psychodynamic features are more frequent than others in subjects prone to coronary heart disease. As personality changes often take place following myocardial infarction, retrospective studies are less convincing than prospective ones. Most of the latter are rather superficial in nature. However, they point in the direction of predominance of obsessive-compulsive character defences, more in myocardial infarction than in angina pectoris without myocardial infarction. Poverty of fantasy life, operational mode of mental functioning (‘pensée opératoire’ of the French school), repression and control of emotional reactions appear predominantly in the former.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.951
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.359 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychotherapy and PsychosomaticsSame topicCardiac Health and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207