Alexithymia and Coping With Stress in Patients With Multiple Sclerosis: A Comparative Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Multiple sclerosis (MS), which is frequently seen in young adults, affects mental health because of disease symptoms and cognitive disorders. This study was conducted to evaluate the presence of alexithymia and problem- or emotion-focused coping strategies with stress in MS patients, determine the relationship between these variables, and compare the results of MS patients with those of healthy individuals. METHODS: This descriptive, cross-sectional, and comparative study was carried out with the participation of 120 MS patients presenting to a neurology clinic and outpatient clinic of a university hospital and 120 healthy individuals. Data were collected using a personal information form, the Toronto Alexithymia Scale, and the Ways of Coping Scale. RESULTS: The 40.8% rate of alexithymia in the MS patients was higher than that in the healthy individuals (21.7%). Compared with healthy individuals, MS patients use emotion-focused coping methods, such as a lack of self-confidence approach and a submissive approach, more frequently ( P < .05). A significant negative correlation was found between the alexithymia and problem-focused coping strategies of MS patients ( P < .01). CONCLUSION: Alexithymia is more common in MS patients than in healthy individuals. Alexithymia negatively affects the methods patients use to cope with stress. In the treatment and care of MS patients, nurses should plan interventions for the ability of these patients to recognize and express their emotions and develop positive coping methods.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it