Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective:To study alexithymia and its cor related factors in hem odialysis patients.Methods:To compare 30 hemodi alysis patients of end s tage renal disease and 30 normal controls with the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS),Self-Rating Anxiety Scale(SAS),Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS) a nd the General Information Questionnaire.Results:1.A high prevalence of alexithy mia (53.33%) was observed in hemodialysis patients.Hemodialysis patients group s howed significantly higher scores than the normal groups on the total score,Ⅰan d Ⅱfact or score of TAS,the standard scores of SAS and SDS (P0.05). 2.There was po si tive correlation between the total score of TAS and the standard score of SAS an d SDS(P0.05), and negative correlation between the total score of TAS and e ducat ion levels in hemodialysis patients group.Conclusion:The p revalence of alexithym ia was high in hemodialysis patients.The degree of alexithymia was more puonounc ed in patients with significant problems of anxiety and depression and in patien ts with lower levels of education.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".