Spinal Cord Injuries Among Genders; Psychological Well- Being
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to analyse the psychological wellbeing among gender suffering from spinal cord injury (SCI). METHODOLOGY: This was a comparative study. It was conducted from January-March 2020 in Hayatabad Medical Complex (HMC), Peshawar. This study compares the psychological well being in terms of their stress, anxiety, and depression. A questionnaire DASS-42 was used to collect the data from both genders. The inclusion criteria comprise of patients who came for the treatment of their spinal cord injury to the orthopaedic department. Those patients having severe physical and comorbid psychiatric illness were excluded. The data was collected and analysed on SPSS 26. RESULTS: The total sample of 127 in which male were 83 and female were 44. The results were significant according to stress, anxiety, and depression. The level of stress was more in male patients,whereas anxiety results were insignificant among gender and depression were high in females respectively. CONCLUSION: Our results revealed, SCI patients have a high risk of anxiety or depression in among male and female. This information could help physicians understand the long-term risk of new-onset anxiety or depression in SCI patients .
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".