Endoscopic findings and psychometric abnormalities: what is the relationship in upper endoscopic outpatients?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Psychological disorders are often associated with diseases of the upper digestive tract. Although emotions can influence gastrointestinal function in healthy individuals, psychological setting in upper gastrointestinal patients are unclear. We evaluate the psychological alterations prevalence in outpatients submitted to upper endoscopy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 130 patients (50 males and 80 females; mean age 54±17 years) submitted to upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, were enrolled over the period May 2009 - September 2010. Subjects were asked to complete questionnaires before endoscopic examination. Alexithymia, anxiety, depression and coping style were assessed using the Toronto Alexithymia Scale, Spielberger Trait Anxiety Inventory, Beck Depression Inventory and Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations, respectively. RESULTS: Coping impairment, Alexithymia, Anxiety and Depression were found respectively in 80.3%, 25.4%, 24.6% and 17.2%, often in association. Task-oriented, emotion-oriented and avoidance-oriented alterations were found in 41.8%, 40% and 30.6%, respectively. No correlations were demonstrated between diagnosis of upper gastrointestinal disease and psychometric results. CONCLUSIONS: In our study, a high prevalence of psychometric alterations in gastrointestinal outpatients was unconnected with endoscopic findings, especially considering coping style alterations. This aspect should be taken into account in patients management and a long-term follow-up should clarify a possible role of these factors in patients prognosis and compliance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".