Dissociative Experiences In Iranian Depressed Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the present study, 229 major depressive disorder (MDD) patients (57.6% female; 42.4% male) were selected by convenience sampling and examined for rate of dissociative experiences. Research tools were Dissociative Experiences Scale (DES) and demographic questionnaire. Group difference examinations were performed for gender, settlement region (place of residence), and chief complaints using standard t-test, analysis of variance, and Chi-square tests as appropriate. Ordinal regression was implemented for model building. The average age of the sample was 36.78 ± 10.73. Of which, 150 (65.5%) lived in the urban and 79 (34.5%) in the rural areas. The chief complaint of the 146 patients (63.8%) was psychiatric symptoms specific to MDD, and the remaining 83 patients (36.2%) had physical symptoms. The average DES score was 10.59 ± 13.59; and a significant mean DES score differences (P < 0.01) between patients’ referred to physician for physical versus psychological complaints (physical: 23.61 ± 14.39; psychological: 3.19 ± 4.5) and geographic settlements (rural: 19.58 ± 15.13; urban: 5.86 ± 9.86) were observed. This study highlights the presence of subtype within MDD patients with significant dissociative tendencies. Given the relationship between trauma history and dissociation, this subgroup could be considered as probable cases with childhood history of abuse, lending to use dissociation as a defense mechanism. Given the evidence for promising results of trauma-focused psychotherapy in treating such patients, paying proper attention to childhood history of depression especially with somatization may minimize pain and suffering of these individuals overtime.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".