Studies on social-psychic factors in patients with post-stroke depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To explore the relationship of coping style or social support and post-stroke depression(PSD),in order to provide the basis for psychological intervention and promote the comprehensive rehabilitation of patients.Methods Thirty-one patients with PSD and thirty-six patients with stroke were assessed with self-rating depression scale(SDS),Toronto alexithymia scale(TAS-20),social support rating scale(SSRS),and medical coping modes questionnaire(MCMQ).Results The total score of social sustain,the score of subjective support and support utilization in the depression group were lower than those in the non-depression group(P0.01 or P0.05).The score of confrontation in the depression group was significantly lower than that in the non-depression group(P0.05),while the score of resignation in the depression group was significantly higher than that in the non-depression group(P0.05).The F1 factor score in the depression group was higher than that in the non-depression group(P0.05).Conclusion Strengthening mental intervention,correcting coping style and emotional recognization ability can promote patients′ recovery and 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 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".