The relationship between the severity of depression and cognitive coping strategies in patients with depressive episode
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To explore the relationship between the depressive mood and cognitive emotion regulation strategies. Methods: A total of 143 major depression patients were assessed with a self-designed questionnaire, Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), the Chinese version of Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (CERQ-C) and the twenty-item Toronto Scale (TAS-20), and 95 healthy people were involved as controls. Regression analysis was carried out for the influcing factors to depressive mood. Results: Compared with controls, Patients with Depressive Episode showed significantly higher total scores of inadaptability strategy，TAS and BDI(P<0.01). There were lots of factors, such as domestic stress and maladaptive strategy showed significant correlation with total score of BDI in major depression (P<0.05 or P<0.01). The factors of domestic stress and maladaptive strategy et al entered the regression equation for BDI by turns. Conclusions: Patients with depression suffered from maladaptive strategy. Cognitive coping strategies and stressl were the important influence factors of depression emotion in patients with depression.
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".