Effectiveness of Integrating Quality of Life-Based Therapy and Phototherapy on Emotion Regulation, Depression, and Anxiety in Psychosomatic Patients
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
The current research was conducted to examine the effectiveness of integrating quality of life-based therapy and phototherapy on improving emotion regulation and reducing depression and anxiety in psychosomatic disorder patients in Isfahan city. This study was quasi-experimental, and its design was experimental and control with pre-test, post-test, and follow-up. The statistical population consisted of psychosomatic patients in Isfahan city. The statistical sample included 30 patients with psychosomatic disorders, who were conveniently selected and non-randomly assigned into two groups: experimental (15 participants) and control (15 participants). The research tools included: Gratz's Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (2004), Beck's Depression Inventory (1990), and Beck's Anxiety Inventory (1990). Descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) and inferential statistics (analysis of variance with repeated measures) were used for data analysis. The results indicated that integrating quality of life-based therapy and phototherapy was effective in improving emotion regulation, depression, and anxiety.
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 | 0.002 | 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