Role of psychological intervention on the quality of life of the patient with spinal cord injury undergoing Magnetic Resonance Imaging examination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the modern world, technological progress has also been accompanied by an increase in traumatic suffering, including those followed by spinal cord injury. The severity of spinal cord injury requires an understanding of the physiological and psychological aspects of patient management. Spinal cord lesions impair physical capabilities and tend to reduce the quality of life, thus creating the need for psychological intervention. In order to do the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), it has been observed that patients frequently experience distress (1) Background: The research highlights the significant influence that psychological interventions have on improving the quality of life of patients undergoing MRI, who have sustained spinal cord injury; (2) Methods: we studied 78 patients hospitalized in the Neurosurgery Clinic 2 of the "Bagdasar Arseni" Hospital for acute spinal cord injuries, in 2 groups of patients with and without psychotherapy, for which we later applied the quality of life test; (3) Results: We observe how, in 2017, SCI were more frequent in the adult male population and psychotherapeutic treatment was slightly more effective in improving QOL in male patients.; (4) Conclusions: For the 27 patients investigated by MRI and operated for SCI in the Neurosurgery Clinic 2 of the "Bagdasar Arseni" Hospital, the average quality of life was higher after the psychotherapy, both for female patients and for male patients and. The psychotherapeutic response and improved quality of life were higher in male patients.
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 | 0.005 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".