Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To investigate the features and psychoscial factors in the patients with coronary heart disease. Methods:48 patients with coronary and 50 normal controls were enrolled.Life events scales(LES),type behavior pattern questionnaire(TABPQ),Toronto alexithymia scale (TAS),self-rating depression scale (SDS),self-rating anxiety scale (SAS),coping style questionnaire(CS),social support scale(SSS)were performed to test their life events,personality characteristics,coping style and social support before disease, and test physical and psychological status and their influencing factors. Results:The frequency and stress of negative life events were significantly higher in patients than in controls.The scores of TABPQ,TAS,negative coping style of CS,SDS and SAS were also significantly higher in patients (all P0.05).But the scores of positive coping style of CS and SSS were lower in patients than in controls (P0.05).The family history,negative life events,type A behavior and depression were the risk factors for the patients with coronary heart disease,whereas the positive coping style and social supports were the protective factors. Conclusion: Patients with coronary heart disease have special social psychology characteristics and physical and mental health status.Positive psychosocial interventions should be taken.
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".