Quality of Life and Spirituality in Medical Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quality of life is an eminently human condition that informs the perception of how the individual is in his life values, while spirituality and religiosity represent the connection with the sacred, the transcendental practices in the search for existential causes. Bringing these concepts to the academic environment can help in promoting health and better training for future medical professionals. The main objective of this study is to evaluate the relationship between quality of life and spirituality of medical students at a private university in the state of Paraná, Brazil. One hundred eighty-nine medical students answered three questionnaires (socio-demographic, WHOQOL-bref on quality of life, and DUREL spirituality) during the first and last year of graduation. In this study, we found that the general quality of life of medical students, according to the WHOQOL-bref scale, is regular (3.78), and there was no statistically significant difference in the general quality of life between the first and the last year of medical school. (p = 0.156). The social and environmental domains leveraged the scores more than the physical and psychological domains in both groups. On the Durel scale, intrinsic religiosity (IR) stood out more than organized (OR) and non-organized (NOR) religiosity, with statistically significant differences (p = 0.018), which may imply that these students prefer to seek more in themselves, a harmony of life between their beliefs and their particular needs, internalizing existential and spiritual reflexes that are reflected in their behaviors and decisions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".