Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective The preliminary study was to explore the psychosocial factors in functional dyspepsia.Methods 50 patients with FD were assessed by scale for minnesota multiphasic personality inventory(MMPI),hamilton depression scale(HAMD),hamilton anxiety scale(HAMA),life event scale(LES),toronto alexithymia Scale(TAS),social support scale(SS).The control group consisted of 30 normal chinese individuals.The patients were randomly divided into two groups,one being treated with famotidine 20 mg and domperidone 10 mg,two times and three times per day respectively,the other treated with famotidine and domperidone in combination with paroxetine 20 mg daily for 8 weeks.Results Patients with functional dyspepsia had significantly higher scores in scale Hs,D,Hy,Pd,Pt,Sc of MMPI,and in the three mood scales(HAMD,HAMA,TAS)compared with the controls.After treatment,the improvements on HAMA nad HAMD and dyspeptic symptoms were better in patients receiving combination therapy than in patients with the routine therapy.Conclusion Patiens with functional dyspepsia had personality and mood disturbance.The medication of paroxetine combined with the routine therapy for functional dyspepsia may probably be helpful in improving the patients'mood.
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) | 0.001 | 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".