The Effectiveness of Emotion Regulation Training on Metacognitive Beliefs and Pain Perception in Patients with Functional Indigestion
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
Background: The most common gastrointestinal disorders are functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGID) of which functional indigestion is one of the most common types and causes the deterioration of health and reduction of quality of life (QOL). This study was conducted with the aim to determine the effectiveness of emotion regulation training on metacognitive beliefs and pain perception in patients with functional indigestion. Methods: The present study was a quasi-experimental research with pretest-posttest design and a control group. The statistical population consisted of all patients with functional indigestion in Tehran, Iran, in 2020. The sample consisted of 30 patients who were selected through the convenience sampling method and randomly assigned to an experimental group (emotion regulation training) and a control group (each consisting of 15 people). The research tools included the Metacognitions Questionnaire (Wells & Cartwright-Hatton, 2004) and McGill Pain Questionnaire (Melzack, 1975). Data analysis was performed using analysis of variance in SPSS software. Results: The findings showed that emotion regulation training was effective on metacognitive beliefs (P < 0.001) and pain perception (P < 0.001) in patients with functional indigestion. Conclusion: It can be concluded that emotion regulation training was effective on metacognitive beliefs and pain perception in patients with functional indigestion.
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 | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it