Efficacy of Biofeedback Therapy for Alexithymia of Patients with Primary Hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To observe the efficacy of biofeedback therapy in treating alexithymia of patients with primary hypertension.MethodsToronto Alexithymia Scale-20(TAS-20)was used to assess the alexithymia of 60 hypertension patients.The 60 patients were randomized into observational group(n=30) and control group(n=30).Patients in the control group underwent the routine treatment and nursing.The patients in the observational group received biofeedback therapy in addition to the routine treatment.The alexithymia and blood pressure were evaluated 4 weeks after the treatment.ResultsComparison among groups: The TAS-20 scores of the observational group were not significantly different from those of the control group before treatment(P0.05).After 4 weeks' treatment,the TAS-20 total scores and blood pressure values in the observational group were significantly lower than those in the control group(P0.05 or P0.01).Comparison within group: There were significant difference on the TAS-20 total scores and blood pressure values in the observational group(P0.01);No significant difference was observed on the TAS-20 total scores(P0.05),however,significant differences were observed on the blood pressure values in the control group after the treatment(P0.01).ConclusionBiofeedback therapy,a valuable alternative or adjunct traditional management for hypertension patients with alexithymia,can effectively improve the patients' alexithymia and decrease blood pressure.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".