MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2322352974 · doi:10.14531/ss2015.1.21-26

PSYCHOLOGICAL RISK FACTORS OF PSYCHOSOMATIC DISORDERS IN CHILDREN WITH IDIOPATHIC SCOLIOSIS

2015· article· en· W2322352974 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Galina V. Pyatakova, Alla V. Ovechkina

Bibliographic record

VenueRussian Journal of Spine Surgery (Khirurgiya Pozvonochnika) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHuman Health and Disease
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlexithymiaIdiopathic scoliosisScoliosisPsychologyClinical psychologyToronto Alexithymia ScalePhysical therapyMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective. To examine indicators of the alexithymia level in adoles- cents with idiopathic scoliosis. Material and Methods . The study included 110 adolescents aged 12 to 16 years. Out of them 30 children had idiopathic scoliosis, and 20 - grade III-IV dysplastic scoliosis. The control group con- sisted of 30 adolescents without severe chronic diseases, and 30 - with rheumatoid arthritis. The Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS) and the Emotional Intelligence (EQ) Test were used in the study. Results . Analysis of alexithymia severity levels in adolescent groups showed that high and middle levels of alexithymia prevailed in chil- dren with idiopathic scoliosis. Adolescents with psychosomatic dis- orders and idiopathic scoliosis had difficulties in identifying their own emotional experiences and related uncomfortable bodily sen- sations, including muscular tension. Conclusion . Adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis and their peers with psychosomatic disorders are characterized by greater sever- ity of alexithymic features as compared to their healthy peers and adolescents with dysplastic scoliosis.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRussian Journal of Spine Surgery (Khirurgiya Pozvonochnika)Same topicHuman Health and DiseaseFrench-language works237,207