留뚯꽦�쐞�뿼 �솚�옄�뱾怨� �쐞沅ㅼ뼇 �솚�옄�뱾 媛꾩쓽 �뒪�듃�젅�뒪諛섏쓳, 遺꾨끂�몴�쁽 諛� 媛먯젙�몴�쁽遺덈뒫利앹쓽 鍮꾧탳
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to make a comparison between chronic superficial gastritis and gastric ulcer patients regarding stress responses, anger expression and alexithymia. The subjects included 100 patients with chronic superficial gastritis and 40 patients with gastric ulcer confirmed by gastroscopy. Stress responses were measured by the Stress Response Inventory(SRI) and anxiety, depression, somatization and hostility subscales of the Symptom Checklist-90-revised(SCL-90-R). Anger expression and anger suppression were assessed by the Anger Expression Scale. The level of alexithymia was assessed by the Toronto Alexithymia Scale(TAS). Multiple regression analysis showed that the patients with chronic gastritis scored significantly higher on tension subscale and somatization subscale of the SRI, and anxiety subscale of the SCL-90-R than those with gastric ulcer. However, no significant differences were found in the score of anger expression and anger suppression subscales and total score of TAS between the two groups. In chronic gastritis patients, women scored significantly higher on somatization subscale of the SRI than men, whereas in gastric ulcer patients, men scored significantly higher on somatization subscale of the SRI than women. These results suggest that chronic gastritis patients are more likely to have higher level of stress responses and higher susceptibility to stress than gastric ulcer patients. In addition, in chronic gastritis patients, women are more likely to somatize than men, but in gastric ulcer patients, men are more likely to somatize than women. However, there were no differences between the two groups in anger expression, anger suppression and alexithymia.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".