The ability and characteristic of self-reflection and insight in schizophrenia and depression patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To investigate the ability of the self-reflection and insight in schizophrenia and depression patients and their characteristics. Methods Self-reflection and insight scale (SRIS) and the toronto alexithymia scale-20(TAS-20)were used to test the self-reflection and insight of 140 schizophrenia patients, 92 depression patients and 131 healthy controls. Results (1)The SRIS score((73.51±12.78), (79.94±11.11)), self-reflection(RE) score ((42.08±10.95), (47.48±9.19)) and insight(IN) score((31.43±4.92), (32.46±5.70)) in schizophrenia and depression patients were significantly lower than those in healthy controls (SRIS score(86.84±12.70), RE score(51.73±9.95), IN score(35.11±5.48)), and the differences were statistically significant(P 0.05). (3) The correlation between TAS-20 score and RE score (r=-0.227, P<0.05) and IN score (r=-0.538, P<0.01) was statistically significant in patients with mental disorder. Conclusion Patients with mental disorder have different levels of self-reflection and insight impairment. Patients with depression suffer from a lower degree of self-reflection than schizophrenia patients. Key words: Self-reflection; Insight; Schizophrenia; Depressive disorder
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".