Alexithymia and analysis of its relevant factors in primary hypertension patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective:To investigate the alexithymia and its relevant factors in primary hypertension patients.Methods:Surveying 132 cases primary hypertension patients,used Toronto alexithymia scale(TAS-26) and the symptom check list 90(SCL-90),and compared with healthy people.Results:(1)The factorⅠ(3.07±0.54),factorⅡ(3.05±0.65),factor Ⅲ(3.12±0.67),factor Ⅳ(2.89±0.69),of TAS-26 were higher than those of control group(t=3.44~11.64,P0.01 all);(2)The total score of TAS-26 no increased(P0.05),but fector Ⅳ increased(P0.01);in dynamic hypertension group than those of blood pressure dynamic increase group;(3)The factor Ⅳ TAS-26 increased in moderate/severe risk factor group(P0.01) compared with no/slight risk factor group;(4)Correlation between TAS-26 and SCL-90:The factor Ⅰ of TAS-26 was positively correlated with interpersonal sensityvity(r=80),hostile(r=0.78) of SCL-90;factor Ⅱ positively correlated with depression of SCL-90(r=0.72),factor Ⅳ positively correlated with terrible of SCL-90(r=0.70),P0.01 all.Conclusion:There are alexithymia in primary hypertension patient,it positively correlated with interpersonal sensityvity,hostile,depression and terrible,must pay attention to intervention.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".