Effect of cognitive behavior therapy combined with amitriptyline on treatment of somatoform pain disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective:To explore efficacy of cognitive behavior therapy combined with amitriptyline on treatment of the somatoform pain disorder.Methods:All 90 patients with somatoform pain disorder were randomly assigned to study group(Group A) treated with cognitive behavior therapy combined with amitriptyline,Group B treated with amitriptyline and group C treated with cognitive behavior therapy alone for 8 weeks.Each group involved 30 cases.Before the treatment and on the 2nd,4th and 8th week after the treatment,simple McGill pain scale(SF-MPQ) and Hamilton depression scale(HAMD) were used to evaluate the reduction degree of pain and depression,respectively.Results:After 8 weeks,the clinical efficacy of the study group(group A)(66.67%) was significantly higher than those in group B(40.00%) and group C(36.67%)(χ2=6.50,P0.05).The scores of HAMD,total and each factor of SF-MPQ in 3 groups were significantly lower after treatment than those before.So were the scores in the study group than those in the control groups on the 4 and 8 weekend after treatment(all P0.05).Conclusions:Cognitive therapy combined with amitriptyline is more effective than amitriptyline or cognitive therapy alone in treatment of the somatoform pain disorder.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".