Evaluating the effects of humor therapy on fatigue levels of hemodialysis patients: A single-blind, randomized clinical trial study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This study investigated the effects of humor therapy on the fatigue levels of patients receiving hemodialysis (HD). Materials and Methods: A single-blind, randomized clinical trial of 66 HD patients for 3 weeks was conducted, in which two groups were randomly allocated – humor therapy and control. In the intervention group, humor therapy sessions were conducted twice a week for 3 weeks. As a pre- and postintervention assessment, the Fatigue Symptom Inventory (FSI) was completed. Results: According to the repeated-measures ANOVA test, FSI values exhibited a significant decline in the humor therapy group and an increase in the control group at the first, second, and third visits (humor therapy vs. control: 30.38 ± 8.75 and 61.80 ± 13.92, P < 0.001; 35.71 ± 10.05 and 69.53 ± 15.32, P < 0.001; and 34.85 ± 9.24 and 70.34 ± 22.26, P < 0.001, respectively) compared with baseline (humor therapy vs. control: 49.26 ± 5.19 and 52.09 ± 11.69, P = 0.204). Conclusion: Findings suggest that humor therapy can effectively reduce fatigue levels in patients presenting with HD.
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 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 | 0.105 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".