MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2363656275

Impacts of family function and coping styles on alexithymia in patients with gastrointestinal cancer

2012· article· en· W2363656275 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zhang Zheng-ming

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Academiae Medicinae Wannan · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth and Wellbeing Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlexithymiaCoping (psychology)PsychologyAffectionToronto Alexithymia ScaleClinical psychologyRegression analysisCorrelationSocial psychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective:To observe the impacts of family function and coping styles on the alexithymia of patients with gastrointestinal cancer.Methods:A survey was performed in 52 patients with gastrointestinal cancer using totronto alexithymia scale(TAS),medical coping modes questionnaire(MCMQ) and family care index,including five dimensions of partnership,adaptation,growth,affection and resolve(PAGAR).Results:①The confrontation factor was positively correlated with the scoring on TAS-I and II,yet significantly negatively with that on TAS Ⅲ and IV as well as the total scores on TAS.The scoring on the factor of avoidance suggested significant positive correlation with TAS-Ⅲ and IV as total scores on TAS,whereas resignation factor scoring was strikingly in negative relation with TAS-I and II,but positively with TAS-Ⅲ and IV as well as total scores for TAS.②Correlation significance was also seen concerning the TAS scoring with diverse factors and family functioning factors.③Multiple regression analysis revealed that the family function,avoidance and resignation were in entry into the regression equation in turn.Conclusion:The family function and coping styles were evidently bound with each other,suggesting that family function and coping styles are important factors affecting alexithymia.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.773

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.408
Teacher spread0.360 · 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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Academiae Medicinae WannanSame topicHealth and Wellbeing ResearchFrench-language works237,207