Does Alexithymia Explain Variation in Cue‐Elicited Craving Reported by Methamphetamine‐Dependent Individuals?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drug craving is an important motivational phenomenon among addicted individuals, and successful management of craving is essential to both the initiation and maintenance of abstinence. Although craving in response to drug cues is common in drug-dependent individuals, it is not universal. At the present time, it is not known why approximately 20-30% of all addicted persons fail to report appreciable craving in laboratory-based cue reactivity studies. This study examined the possibility that alexithymia, a personality attribute characterized by a difficulty identifying and describing emotions, may contribute to the impoverished cue-elicited craving experienced by some addicts. Specifically, we tested the hypothesis that alexithymia, as measured by the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS), would be inversely related to the magnitude of cue-elicited craving obtained in a cue reactivity protocol. Forty methamphetamine-dependent individuals completed the TAS and provided craving ratings for methamphetamine after presentation of methamphetamine-associated cues. Thirteen participants (32%) reported no methamphetamine cue-elicited craving. Contrary to expectation, TAS factor 1 (a measure of difficulty identifying feelings) scores were positively associated with cue-elicited craving. Thus, the results suggest that increasing difficulty-identifying feelings may be associated with higher cue-elicited craving. Clinical implications for this finding are discussed.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".