The relationship between expressed emotion and temperament traits in caregivers of schizophrenic patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In the present study, we were primarily interested in determining whether some temperamenttraits of the caregivers would be associated withtheir expressed emotion levels. We also examined the relationship of EE levels of the caregivers with some care and illness characteristics of the patients. METHODS: Seventy-six consecutive schizophrenic patients (aged between 18 and 65) according to the Psychotic Symptoms module of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders Patient Edition (SCID-I/P, Version 2.0) and their primary caregivers who had no current DSM-IV diagnoses of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depression, and any anxiety disorders were included in the study. Expressed Emotion Scale, Temperament Evaluation of Memphis, Pisa, Paris and San Diego auto-questionnaire (TEMPS-A), Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, The Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia tools were used for evaluation during study. RESULTS: The total and criticism/hostility subscale scores of EES were significantly correlated with depressive (r=0.35, p=0.002; r=0.36, p=0.001, respectively), cyclothymic (r=0.26, p=0.019; r=0.26, p=0.022, respectively), hyperthymic (r=0.28, p=0.014; r=0.26, p=0.022, respectively), and anxious temperament traits (r=0.31, p=0.006; r=0.30, p=0.007, respectively). Irritable temperament scores had a significant association with total EES scores (r=0.23, p=0.037). We have found that duration of the illness and patient care had significant inverse associations with total (r= -0.24, p=0.03;r= -0.29, p=0.009, respectively) and warmth subscale scores of EES (r= -0.34, p=0.002; r= -0.31, p=0.006, respectively). Depressive (β=0.287, t=2.737, p=0.008) and hyperthymic temperaments (β=0.223, t=2.138, p=0.036), and duration of patient care(β= -0.268, t= -2.609, p=0.011) were significantly associated with improved expressed emotion scores.
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".