MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3093167196 · doi:10.47391/jpma.1260

Post-traumatic stress disorder, cognitive function and adjustment problems in women burn survivors: a multicenter study

2020· article· en· W3093167196 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zaqia Bano, Iram Naz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Pakistan Medical Association · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBurn Injury Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTraumatic stressCognitionChecklistCross-sectional studyPsychiatryClinical psychologyGerontologyPhysical therapyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the relationship of post-traumatic stress disorder, cognitive function and adjustment problems in women burn survivors. METHODS: The analytical cross-sectional study was conducted at the Department of Psychology, University of Gujrat, Pakistan, from November 15, 2017, to July 25, 2018, and comprised women burn survivors at different burn centres of hospitals, household bases and non-governmental organisations of Lahore, Gujrat, Rawalpindi and Islamabad, Pakistan. Data was collected using the civilian version of the standardised Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment and the Adjustment Problem Scale for Adults. Data was analysed using Analysis of a Moment Structures software version 21. RESULTS: Of the 200 women, 100(50%) each were living in nuclear and joint family systems. The maximum number of women 74(37%) were aged 15-25 years; 93(46.5%) were married; and 82(41%) were employed. Post-traumatic stress disorder affected cognitive issues and adjustment of women burn survivors (p=0.000). CONCLUSIONS: Post-traumatic stress disorder significantly affected cognitive issues and adjustment problems of women burn survivors.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.270

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Pakistan Medical AssociationSame topicBurn Injury Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207