Evaluation of treatment of psychiatric morbidity among limb amputees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The sudden jolt of becoming an amputee brings with it the realization of loss of independence and self-built psychological and physical security. Advances in the field of prosthesis give the individual hope for better future, but the presence of psychological morbidity is a hurdle to be crossed in the road to satisfactory rehabilitation. AIM: This study aimed to assess the psychiatric morbidity in amputees and the response to treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred newly amputated soldiers were assessed by means of clinical interview, General Health Questionnaire, Impact of Event Scale, Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale, McGill Pain Questionnaire, and Dallas Pain Questionnaire. Individuals were treated with appropriate medications and psychotherapy, and response to treatment was assessed. RESULTS: Psychiatric disorders were diagnosed in 66% including adjustment disorders (40%), depressive episode (20%), and posttraumatic stress disorder (6%). Phantom sensation and phantom pain were noted in 72% and 64% of participants, respectively. More psychiatric disorders and phantom sensation were found in the early months after amputation. Psychiatric morbidity was associated with negative body image, distressing pain, and restriction of activities of daily life. Treatment produced complete remission of symptoms in 65.15% of individuals suffering from psychiatric disorders and statistically significant reduction in the scores of psychiatric rating scales. CONCLUSIONS: There is a high prevalence of psychiatric morbidity among amputees. Psychiatric treatment produces significant improvement in the psychological well-being of amputees and underlines the need to focus on the psychological rehabilitations of the amputee apart from physical rehabilitation.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".