MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152112616 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v7n4p382

Depressive Symptoms Effect on Self Care Behavior During the First Month After Myocardial Infarction

2015· article· en· W2152112616 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
M Niakan, Ezzat Paryad, Ehsan Kazemnezhad Leili, Farzaneh Sheikholeslami

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Health and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeeDepression (economics)MedicineMyocardial infarctionAffect (linguistics)Depressive symptomsSelf careInternal medicinePhysical therapyGeneralized estimating equationPsychiatryAnxietyPsychologyHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: To determine the effect of severity of depression symptoms on self care behavior in 15th and 30th day after myocardial infarction (MI). MATERIALS & METHODS: Gathering data for this cross sectional study was done by Beck depression and self care behavior questionnaires in a heart especial hospital in Rasht in north of Iran .Sample size was 132 after MI patients and data collected from June 2011 to January 2012. RESULTS: Scores of depression symptoms in 15th and 30th day after MI and score of self care behavior in these days had significant difference (P<0.0001) .Spearman test showed self care behavior had significant relationship with depression symptoms (P<0.0001). GEE model also showed with control of socio demographic and illness related factors, depression symptoms can decrease self care behavior scores (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Severity of depression symptoms increase in 15th to 30th day after MI .This issue can affect on self care behavior. This issue is emphasized on nurses' notice to plan suitable self care program for these patients.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.320 · 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

Citations14
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health ScienceSame topicCardiac Health and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207