Bibliographic record
Abstract
【Objectives This study was designed to development the diagnosis indicators for the fatigue group without disease using analysis of questionnaire data. Methods The subjects were divided into three groups, the fatigue group with disease, the fatigue group without disease, non-fatigue group without disease. Thirteen kinds of questionnaire (Fatigue visual analogue scale, Fatigue severity scale, Pain visual analogue scale, Short-form McGill pain questionnaire score, Headache impact Test-6, Neck disability index, Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire score, Blood stasis assessment scale, Physical activities questionnaire score, Beck depression inventory, Anger expression inventory score, Mood disability scale, Job stress scale) were carried out for the subjects. Results The results of this study are ; 1) The weight, the systolic and diastolic blood pressure were different among three groups. 2) Among nine questionnaires related to the physical or life conditions, the averages of eight questionnaires were not same one another. 3) Among four questionnaires related to the mental condition or autonomic nervous system, the averages of Beck depression inventory were not same one another. Conclusion The fatigue group without disease can be diagnosed through using the both the questionnaires related to the physical or life condition and the those related to the mental condition or autonomic nervous system.】
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.080 | 0.047 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".