A Comparison and Prediction of Irrational Beliefs and Cognitive Functioning Among Depressed and Non-Depressed Adults in Gujrat, Pakistan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To compare and predict the irrational beliefs and cognitive functioning among depressed and non-depressed adults in Gujrat, Pakistan. Study Design: Comparative cross-sectional study. Place and Duration of Study: Zulfiqar Hospital, Akram Hospital and Aziz Bhatti Hospital, Gujrat and Department of Psychology, the University of Gujrat from Dec 2017 to Mar 2018. Methodology: The data was collected from 200 adults, 100 depressed adults and 100 non-depressed adults using consecutive sampling. The non-depressed adults with no past psychiatric history were recruited from the community. The irrational beliefs were assessed using the Evaluative beliefs scale, and cognitive functioning was measured using the Montreal cognitive assessment scale. Results: The independent sample t-test indicated that there was a statistically significant difference (p<0.001) in the irrational beliefs of depressed and non-depressed adults, and the irrational beliefs of depressed were more (37.83 ± 8.12) than the nondepressed adults (4.33 ± 4.64). The comparison of cognitive functioning of the depressed and non-depressed was also significantly different (p<0.001). The cognitive functioning of depressed adults was poorer (12.44 ± 3.85) than the nondepressed adults (26.92 ± 2.55). Further-more, irrational beliefs predict cognitive functioning [R²=0.729; F (1,198) = 532.763, p<0.001]. Conclusion: The study findings indicated a difference in the irrational beliefs and cognitive functioning of depressed and nondepressed adults. Further, the depressed had more irrational beliefs and worsened cognitive functioning.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".