Liu Hui1, Wang Yuai, Qi Xia, Yuan Hong. 1. College of Medical Laboratory, Dalian Medical University, Dalian 116044, China. liuhui60@mail.dlptt.ln.cn
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of the present study is to develop a quantitative system that will allow objective assessment of a stress gradient and to examine the relationship between stress and health. METHODS: The stress group consisted of patients with fractures. The low stress group consisted of strong manual workers, mental workers, and those who had experienced stressful social events. The subjects in the control group were healthy. We measured the levels of 2 laboratory parameters--high sensitive C-reactive protein and fasting plasma glucose--using automated analyzers. The above-mentioned two indicators were transformed into quailtative indicators based on the median value derived from the healthy population (values above and below the median value were designated as positive and negative, respectively). Apart from one person who was positive for both indicators and was thus considered positive for stress, the remaining individuals were all negative for stress. RESULTS: The positive rates of stress were 82.4% and 39.8% in the stress group and low stress group respectively. These values were significantly different from control group (P <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: We have successfully developed a simple, precise, and sensitive method for the quantification of stress.
BACKGROUND: The purpose of the present study is to develop a quantitative system that will allow objective assessment of a stress gradient and to examine the relationship between stress and health. METHODS: The stress group consisted of patients with fractures. The low stress group consisted of strong manual workers, mental workers, and those who had experienced stressful social events. The subjects in the control group were healthy. We measured the levels of 2 laboratory parameters--high sensitive C-reactive protein and fasting plasma glucose--using automated analyzers. The above-mentioned two indicators were transformed into quailtative indicators based on the median value derived from the healthy population (values above and below the median value were designated as positive and negative, respectively). Apart from one person who was positive for both indicators and was thus considered positive for stress, the remaining individuals were all negative for stress. RESULTS: The positive rates of stress were 82.4% and 39.8% in the stress group and low stress group respectively. These values were significantly different from control group (P <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: We have successfully developed a simple, precise, and sensitive method for the quantification of stress.