Research on twice-exceptional students, those who simultaneously present intellectual giftedness and dyslexia (G-D), remains limited, particularly with regard to gender differences in reading and writing processes. The present study examines these differences in a sample of 39 Spanish students (21 boys and 18 girls) aged 8 to 12 years, with the aim of determining whether significant differences exist in literacy-related scores within this population. Using a comparative design, the results show that most assessed variables do not reveal significant differences between boys and girls. However, some specific differences in test scores were identified: boys obtained higher scores in syllable dictation, whereas girls outperformed boys in story writing and in tasks related to grammatical structures and punctuation marks. These differences suggest the use of differentiated strategies, with greater reliance on visual and visuospatial resources among boys and more efficient use of verbal and linguistic processing among girls. The interaction inherent in this twice-exceptionality appears to modify the gender differences typically reported in other profiles with respect to literacy performance, highlighting the need for specific approaches to identification, assessment, and educational intervention tailored to this G-D population.
Static spirometry parameters may offer practical alternatives to estimate maximum oxygen consumption (V̇O2max) in athletic populations. This study evaluated forced vital capacity (FVC) as a predictor of V̇O2max across different sports, developing prediction equations for field-based assessment. Four hundred twenty-two athletes (324 males, 98 females; age 22.9 ± 8.5 years) from cycling (n = 123), swimming (n = 68), triathlon (n = 60), multisport (n = 83), and other sports (n = 88) performed spirometry and maximal incremental testing. V̇O2max was directly measured using breath-by-breath gas analysis. LASSO regression identified predictors, with Bland–Altman analysis assessing agreement. FVC and gender emerged as significant predictors (R2 = 0.690, P < 0.001). The equation V̇O2max (L·min−1) = (FVC × 0.61) + (Gender × 0.86) yielded SEE = 0.65 L·min−1. Including additional variables (Maximum voluntary ventilation, body weight, age) marginally improved prediction (R2 = 0.712) but reduced practical utility. Coefficient of variation between measured and predicted values was 12.1
Objective To determine the prevalence of Burnout Syndrome (BOS) and Burnout Process (BOP), as well as the possible factors associated with their appearance in healthcare professionals in Intensive Care Units (ICUs) in Spain. Design Multicenter, observational, cross-sectional study using an electronic questionnaire. Factors independently associated with BOS and BOP were determined by multiple logistic regression. Scope ICU in Spain. Patients or participants ICU healthcare professionals. Variables of interest Prevalence of suffering Burnout Syndrome (BOS) and of developing the Burnout Process (BOP), as well as factors associated with this prevalence. Results 1490 participants: physicians 15% (228), nurses 62% (925) and auxiliary nurses 23% (337). Prevalence of BOS 30% (447/1490): 32% in physicians (74/232), 32% in nurses (296/925) and 25% (84/337) in auxiliary nurses. The prevalence of having BOS or BOP was 66% (984/1490): 69% in physicians (157/228), 69% in nurses (638/925) and 53% (179/337) in NA o HCA. 23% (343/1490) had only one high dimension, 22% (328/1490) two dimensions and 20% (298/1490) all three dimensions of the BOS. Younger age (OR 0.97 CI 0.95−0.99), female gender (OR 1.38 CI 1.04–1.84), being a medical or nursing professional (OR 1.46 CI 1.09–1.96), professional experience (OR 1.04 CI 1.01–1.06), working in non-surgical units (OR 1.64 CI 1.14–2.37) and higher hospital complexity (OR 1.91 CI 1.48–2.44) were associated with BOS and BOP. An unfavourable physician-to-patient ratio (>1/10) during shifts (OR 2.20, CI 1.13–4.30), and childlessness (OR 0.55, CI 0.30–0.99), were factors associated with BOS and BOP among physicians and auxiliary nurses, respectively. Conclusions The prevalence of BOS and BOP among ICU healthcare professionals in Spain was high. Sociodemographic, occupational, and organizational factors were identified as significant contributors to both BOS and BOP.
Background: Sarcopenia is a disease characterized by the progressive loss of muscle mass and strength associated with aging. There are marked differences in sarcopenia prevalence depending on the diagnostic algorithm used. It has been demonstrated that muscle power is the most relevant predictor for determining functional limitations in older adults. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the performance of the Sarcopenia Optoelectronic Chair-Rise Velocity Test (SARC-T) as complementary alternative to tests that determinate probable sarcopenia and/or assess its severity, as well as to assessment analyze its correlation with other validated tests. Methods: A cross-sectional analysis was conducted in a population residing in elderly care centers. All physical tests included in the second version of the diagnostic algorithm developed by the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People 2 (EWGSOP2) in 2019 were performed. In addition, the SARC-T was administered to measure the speed at which participants rose from a chair. Physiological variables, including heart rate (HR), systolic blood pressure (SBP), and oxygen saturation (SpO2), were also monitored. Results: The sarcopenia group showed significantly lower physical performance than the non-sarcopenia group in all tests. At a physiological level, no significant differences were found between groups in the 5-STST, Handgrip, and TUG. Additionally, the SARC-T showed a strong correlation with Handgrip (r = 0.800), 5-STST (r = -0.719) and TUG (r = -0.523), and a moderate correlation with Gait Speed (r = -0.438) in sarcopenia group. Conclusion: The SARC-T could be a safe, accurate, and low-impact complementary tool for assessing the probability and severity of sarcopenia.
This article explores the relationship between human suffering and the limits of language, positing that suffering is not simply an experience of physical pain or emotional distress but a fracture in the capacity to articulate meaning. It clearly distinguishes between pain (a localised sensory experience that is potentially communicable) and suffering (an existential experience that involves a rupture of the symbolic order). It is argued that suffering appears when personal narrative is interrupted or becomes incoherent, provoking what is termed a ‘collapse of language’—moments when experience exceeds the expressive and symbolic capacity of the subject. This phenomenon is examined from multiple perspectives: the phenomenology of the body, philosophies of the limit (Lévinas, Derrida, Ricoeur) and clinical cases such as trauma, dementia and the diagnosis of serious illnesses. The text criticises the traditional definition of suffering proposed by Eric Cassell for presupposing a narrative self-consciousness, excluding prelinguistic or non-narrative forms of suffering. The text also tackles the issue of epistemic injustice in clinical contexts, where individuals discredit or lack conceptual resources to articulate their experiences of suffering. Finally, the article suggests an ethics of care that involves being open to what cannot be fully expressed, understanding that truly responding to suffering means not just trying to understand it completely or get rid of it, but being there in that difficult space where words fall short, while still providing human presence as support.
