MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2359754282

A study on self-rating health condition and related factors in hospitalized depressive patients

2011· article· en· W2359754282 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zeng Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of psychiatry · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth and Wellbeing Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDepression (economics)AlexithymiaRating scalePsychologyConfidence intervalSelf-rated healthClinical psychologyCorrelationMedicineInternal medicineGerontologyDevelopmental psychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective To investigate self-rating health condition and related factors in hospitalized patients with depression.MethodsA total of 105 patients with depression and 120 healthy controls were assessed with a self-designed questionnaire,self-rating health measurement scale version 1.0(SRHMS),toronto alexithymia scale(TAS) and self-rating depression scale(SDS).T test,correlation and regression analysis were carried out.Results(1) Compared with controls,patients with depression showed significant lower scores in the total score of SRHMS and three factors(P0.05 or P0.01).(2) There were many factors such as the total scores of SDS,TAS and its factors showed significant correlation with total score and most factor scores of SRHMS in patients with depression(r=0.227~0.507,P0.01).(3) Total scores of SDS,economic status,confidence of therapy,general therapeutic effect and stress of marriage-domesticity entered the regression equation for the total socre of SRHMS in patients with depression by turns.ConclusionPatients with depression suffered from bad health status.The total scores of SDS,economic status,confidence of therapy,general therapeutic effect and stress of marriage-domesticity may be responsible for bad health status in patients with depression.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.543

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.386 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of psychiatrySame topicHealth and Wellbeing ResearchFrench-language works237,207