777 – The Impact of Stressful Life Events on the Functionality of Patients with Schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Clinical symptoms, functional recovery and stressful life events of patients with schizophrenia were evaluated to investigate the relationship between life events and functional recovery. Methods: Fifty-three subjects diagnosed with schizophrenia in the remission period were enrolled in the study. Three interviews each at 3 months interval were made with the participants. the participants were evaluated with socio-demographic data form, Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, Calgary Depression Scale, the Functional Remission of General Schizophrenia Scale at the baseline, third and sixth month interview. the number of stressful life events were determined according to Life Events List. Results: There was no significant change in the PANNS scores measured at the baseline and follow interview (p>0.05). Depression scores were significantly increased at the follow interviews(p< 0.05). This significant increase mostly resulted from the difference between the baseline and final interview scores. the number of stresful life events and functional recovery were found to be negatively correlated with a medium level of significance at the third month (p< 0.05). There was a negative relationship between the number of life events and functional recovery at the sixth month but it did not reach to a statistical significance (p>0.05). A significant relationship and a negative correlation was found between functional recovery and depression scores at both the baseline and third month interviews (p< 0.05). This relationship was not significant at the sixth month (p>0.05). Conclusions: Stresfull life events in remitted schizophrenia patients reduces functionality over depressive symptomatology without affecting positive and negative symptoms.
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) | 0.003 | 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".