MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061989052 · doi:10.1080/01674820801970306

Premenstrual Syndrome in Thai Nurses

2008· article· en· W2061989052 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Chenchit Chayachinda, Manee Rattanachaiyanont, Sucheera Phattharayuttawat, Sirirat Kooptiwoot

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMenstrual Health and Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcMaster University
KeywordsMenstruationMedicineLogistic regressionConfidence intervalOdds ratioDemographyChi-square testTest (biology)GynecologyInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To investigate prevalence of premenstrual syndrome (PMS) and its associated factors among Thai nurses. METHODS: The study was conducted in 423 nurses in a university hospital during October 2005 to March 2006. Prevalence of PMS was determined using a validated Thai version of Premenstrual Symptoms Screening Tool (PSST). Factors associated with PMS were analyzed using Student t-test and Chi-square test. RESULTS: The prevalence of PMS in Thai nurses was 25.1%. Nurses with younger age, nulligravida, lower income, more coffee consumption, dysmenorrhea, and negative attitude toward menstruation had higher prevalence of PMS. After multiple logistic regression analysis, the significant factors associated with PMS were coffee consumption > 1 cups/day and negative attitude toward menstruation; odds ratios (95% confidence interval) were 2.322 (1.257 to 4.288) and 5.768 (2.096 to 15.872), respectively. CONCLUSION: According to the Thai PSST, 25.1% of Thai nurses are suffering from PMS. The significant associated factors were more coffee consumption and negative attitude toward menstruation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations58
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & GynecologySame topicMenstrual Health and DisordersFrench-language works237,207