MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147772240 · doi:10.5812/ircmj.16307

Association of Psychologic and Nonpsychologic Factors With Primary Dysmenorrhea

2014· article· en· W2147772240 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mahbobeh Faramarzi, Hajar Salmalian

Bibliographic record

VenueIranian Red Crescent Medical Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMenstrual Health and Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBabol University of Medical Sciences
KeywordsMedicineAlexithymiaNeuroticismSocial supportDepression (economics)AnxietyLogistic regressionToronto Alexithymia ScaleFamily historyClinical psychologyPersonalityPsychiatryObstetricsGynecologyInternal medicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Primary dysmenorrhea seems to be one the most common gynecologic condition in women of childbearing age. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this research was to evaluate psychologic and nonpsychologic risk factors of primary dysmenorrhea. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted on medical sciences students of Babol University of Medical Sciences. In this study, 180 females with dysmenorrhea and 180 females without dysmenorrhea were enrolled. Psychological risk factors were evaluated in four domains including affect, social support, personality, and alexithymia. Four questionnaires were used to assessed aforementioned domains, namely, Social Support Questionnaire (SSQ), depression, anxiety, stress (DAS-21), 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20), and NEO-Five Factor Inventory of Personality (NEO-FFI). In addition, nonpsychologic factors were evaluated in three domains including demographic characteristics, habits, and gynecologic factors. Data were analyzed using the χ2 test and multiple logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: The strongest predictor of primary dysmenorrhea was low social support (OR = 4.25; 95% CI, 2.43-7.41). Risk of dysmenorrhea was approximately 3.3 times higher in women with alexithymia (OR = 3.26; 95% CI, 1.88-5.62), 3.1 times higher in women with menstrual bleeding duration ≥ 7 days (OR = 3.06; 95% CI, 1.73-5.41), 2.5 times higher in women with a neurotic character (OR = 2.53; 95% CI, 1.42-4.50), 2.4 times higher in women with a family history of dysmenorrhea (OR = 2.43; 95% CI, 1.42-4.50), and twice higher in women with high caffeine intake (OR = 1.97; 95% CI, 1.09-3.59). CONCLUSIONS: Low social support, alexithymia, neuroticism trait, long menstrual bleeding, family history of dysmenorrhea, and high-caffeine diet are important risk factors for women with primary dysmenorrhea. This study recommended considering psychologic factors as an adjuvant to medical risks in evaluation and treatment of primary dysmenorrhea.

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Citations109
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIranian Red Crescent Medical JournalSame topicMenstrual Health and DisordersFrench-language works237,207