Failure of the Anticoagulant Therapy and Psychological Distress: Still Far From a Bridge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. The procoagulant stress response reflects part of a beneficial adaptation of the organism to environmental threats, but a protracted procoagulant state generates a thrombotic risk. Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia in the general population. Patients with AF have a higher risk of thromboembolic events and stroke, therefore they are treated with long term oral anti-coagulant (OAC) therapy. The aim of this study is to evaluate if there are associations between psychological factors and the value of the International Normalized Ratio (INR). Methods. Fifty-three patients (men=25; women=28; mean ag =75.04) were recruited. The sample was divided according to the recognition (or not) of the reason why the INR was subtherapeutic (< 2) and classified as "Known Reasons" (KR = 35.84%) and "Unknown Reasons" (UR= 64.15%). Psychological assessment was based on Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ), Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (Brief IPQ), Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) and the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS). Results. Based on Mann-Whitney Test, no significant difference was found in the scores of anxiety, depression, stress and emotional regulation strategies. From the TAS-20 scores analysis, UR subjects are characterized by an outward-oriented thinking (U=179.0; p=0.005). The Brief IPQ scores showed that KR patients, compared to UR patients, perceived more consequences of the disease on their life (U=184; p=0.018), had more perception of symptoms (U=192.5; p=0.027), had a poorer understanding (U=191.5; p=0.035) and perceived as more threatening the disease (U=182.5; p=0.025). Conclusions. It could not be found a clear role for
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".