MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4307102494 · doi:10.18502/jimc.v5i3.10950

Predicting the Premenstrual Syndrome Based on Alexithymia and Self-Efficacy in Women with Migraine: A Cross-Sectional Study

2022· article· en· W4307102494 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Abbas Sadeghi, Sholeh Gharibi, Sajjad Saadat

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Iranian Medical Council · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlexithymiaToronto Alexithymia ScaleCross-sectional studyClinical psychologyMedicineMigrainePopulationSelf-efficacyPsychologyPsychiatryPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Premenstrual Syndrome (PMS) is a common problem in women with migraines. Due to the importance of recognizing aspects of this issue, this study was conducted to investigate the role of alexithymia and self-efficacy factors in predicting PMS. Methods: This analytical cross-sectional study was performed on the statistical population of women with migraine referred to medical centers in Rasht in 2021. 160 women with migraines participated in convenience sampling methods from medical centers and responded to the Demographic Information Questionnaire, Premenstrual Symptoms Screening Tool (PSST), Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) and General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE). Data analysis was performed using IBM SPSS 21 (IBM Inc, New York, USA) statistical software. Results: The results showed that 59.6% of the women had PMS. Pearson correlation coefficient showed that PMS was negatively associated with self-efficacy (r=-0.28; p=0.001) and positively associated with alexithymia (r=0.22; P=0.001). Multiple linear regression analysis indicated that the self-efficacy variable (β=-0.27) negatively predicts 11% of the changes in the PMS variable. Conclusion: Self-efficacy and alexithymia are PMS-related factors; thus it is suggested that health care providers pay attention to the importance of these psychological factors in developing treatment plans.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.591

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Iranian Medical CouncilSame topicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207