MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2344724925 · doi:10.1177/1359105315604378

Emotional management and quality of life in mother living versus multi-organ donor renal transplant recipients

2015· article· en· W2344724925 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rosaria Calia, Carlo Lai, Paola Aceto, Giovanna Pascolo, Silvia Lai, Jacopo Romagnoli, Franco Citterio

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Health Psychology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality of life (healthcare)AlexithymiaMedicineOrgan transplantationMental healthKidney transplantationClinical psychologySocial supportPsychologyTransplantationPsychiatryInternal medicineNursingSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study was to evaluate psychological differences and quality of life between kidney recipients from living (mother) and multi-organ donor. Overall, 40 patients who had undergone both living (mother) and multi-organ kidney transplantation 3-6 months before were asked to complete four self-report instruments: Toronto Alexithymia Scale, Short Form Health Survey, Regulatory Emotional Self-efficacy, and Attachment Style Questionnaire. A greater difficulty in emotional, social, and mental health functioning was found in recipients receiving kidney from mother living donor. Moreover, in these patients, higher levels of avoidant attachment dimensions were associated with a worse quality of life.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

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 head0.161
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations10
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Health PsychologySame topicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207