The relationship between body image and emotional and cognitive impairment after brain damage: A preliminary study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The image of one's own body derives from experimentation of one's own body pattern. The emotional experience can lead to a real or distorted self-representation. After brain damage, a disorder of body image is frequent. The purpose of this study was to investigate the role of body image following acquired brain injury (ABI). METHODS: Forty-six hospitalized patients were enrolled and subdivided into two groups depending on the etiology of the damage: traumatic or vascular. For each group, we considered their cognitive level and mood. Patients underwent a broad battery of tests to investigate different domains: Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA); Beck's Depression Inventory (BDI-II); Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (HAM-A); Clinical Insight Rating Scale (CIRS); Body Image Scale (BIS); Human Figure Drawing (HFD). The latter was used to assess the implicit body image of each patient. RESULTS: Both groups showed a significant relationship between BDI-II and BIS. A positive correlation was found between BIS and HAM-A, but only in the traumatic group. We showed a positive correlation between MoCA and HFD. In addition, we observed some subitems of MoCA as predictive variables in HFD, which differ in the two groups. In a traumatic group, the visuospatial domain is predictive in HFD, as well as age of patients' and education. In the vascular groups, orientation, naming, abstraction, and language domains are instead predictive. CONCLUSIONS: The results confirm the crucial role of the cognitive level and mood on self-perception.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".