MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Somatic symptoms in patients with acute stroke: clinical features and influencing factors

2016· article· en· W3028787435 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yixiong Chen, Dongmei Wang, Xiaojia Liu, Shuai Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueInt J Cerebrovasc Dis · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSomatizationMedicineStroke (engine)Depression (economics)Rating scaleAnxietySymptom Checklist 90HamdPhysical therapyMarital statusToronto Alexithymia ScaleInternal medicineRehabilitationPsychiatryPsychologyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective To investigate the clinical features and influencing factors of somatic symptoms in patients with acute stroke. Methods Patients with acute stroke were enrolled in the study. Using the scores of symptom checklist 90(SCL-90)-somatization factor part, the patients were divided into either a somatic symptom group(≥24)or a control group(<24). Their age, gender, economic level, education level, underlying diseases, Hamilton Anxiety Scale(HAMA), Hamilton Depression Scale(HAMD), NEO Five-Factor Inventory scores, Social Support Rating Scale scores-simplified Chinese version, Mini-Mental State Examination(MMSE)scores, National Institute of Health Stroke Scale(NIHSS)scores were documented and analyzed. Results A total of 70 patients with acute stroke were enrolled, and 33(47.1%)of them had somatic symptoms. There were no significant differences in demographic characteristics, education level, family income, occupation, marital status, living alone, residence, medical expenses payment methods and social support scores between the somatic symptom group and the control group. There were also no significant differences in the types of stroke, lesion side, baseline NIHSS score, MMSE score, and NEO Five-Factor Inventory score between the 2 groups. There was significant difference in lesion side between the somatic symptom group and the control group(χ2=0.161, P=0.006). The comparison of neuropsychological test results showed that the proportion of patients with an anxiety state of the somatic symptom group was significantly higher than that of the control group(24.2% vs. 5.4%; χ2=5.055, P=0.025), but there was no significant difference in the proportion of patients with depression status; after excluding the cases who met the anxiety and depression criteria, HAMA(8.08±3.12 vs. 5.58±3.06; t=-3.059, P=0.003)and HAMD(10.80±4.81 vs. 7.73±3.88; t=-2.694, P=0.009)scores of the somatic symptom group(n=25)were significantly higher than those of the control group(n=33). The number of somatic symptoms of the somatic symptom group was significantly more than that of the control group(Z=-5.817, P<0.001), and was more likely to have pain symptoms(97.0% vs. 73.0%; χ2=7.584, P=0.006). The correlation analysis showed that there was a significant positive correlation in the 12-item scores of the SCL-90 somatic factors and HAMA(r=0.494, P<0.001)and HAMD(r=0.369, P=0.002)scores in patients. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that HAMA score was an independent risk factor for somatic symptoms after stroke.(odds ratio 1.286, 95% confidence interval 1.060-1.560; P=0.011). Conclusions The incidence of somatic symptoms is high after acute stroke, especially in patients with cortical stroke. The somatic patients after stroke are prone to have pain-related symptoms. The patients with anxiety and depression status after stroke are prone to have somatic symptoms after stroke; HAMA score is an independent risk factor for having somatic symptoms after stroke. Key words: Stroke; Somatoform Disorders; Depression; Anxiety Disorders; Pain; Risk Factors

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.308

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInt J Cerebrovasc DisSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207