Bibliographic record
Abstract
ObjectiveTo explore mood expression of patients with panic disorder.Methods47 patients with panic disorder and 37 normal controls were studied with Toronto Alexithymia Scale(TAS) , Hamilton depression Scale and Hamilton anxiety scale.ResultsCompared with the Ⅱ subscore of TAS (2.58±0.67) in control group, scores of panic patients with agoraphobia and of patients without agoraphobia(3.30±0.70 and 3.13± 0.75 ,respectively) increase significantly ( P 0.05). The total score of TAS of panic patients with agoraphobia(75.4±10.1) is significantly higher than that of controls(66.3±8.9)( P 0.01), while that of panic patients without agoraphobia is not. There is no significant difference in the Ⅰ,Ⅲ and Ⅳ subscores of TAS among all of patients and controls(all P 0.05).The scores of HAMA and HAMD of all panic patients are significantly higher than those of controls( P 0.001), and the differences between patients with agoraphobia and patients without agoraphobia are not significant( P 0.05). The scores of TAS and four subscores were no correlated with the scores of HAMA and HAMD and course of the disorder(all P 0.05).ConclusionPatients with panic disorder, especially for those with agoraphobia, may have deficiency in recognizing and making distinguish between emotion and body feeling, which have no correlation with course , anxiety and depressive state; while patients may have no deficiency in the ability of describing emotion, fancy-lacking and extroversion thought.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".