Criterion-Related Validity of the Diagnostic Criteria for Psychosomatic Research for Alexithymia in Patients with Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Because of criticism made against psychiatric assessment of somatization, alternative Diagnostic Criteria for Psychosomatic Research (DCPR) have been proposed by an international group of psychosomatic investigators. One of these criteria concerns the alexithymia construct. The main aim of the present study was to investigate the criterion-related validity of the DCPR for alexithymia syndrome (DCPR-A). A secondary aim was to explore the relationship between alexithymia and depressed mood. METHOD: The study included 190 consecutive outpatients with functional gastrointestinal disorders. Alexithymia was assessed by means of the DCPR-A and the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20). Depressed mood was assessed on the basis of the Depression subscale of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HDS) and the DSM-IV criteria. RESULTS: The sensitivity of the DCPR-A together with the TAS-20 was 70.2%, specificity was 81.6%, positive predictive power 88.9%, negative predictive power 66.0% and overall hit rate 46.8%. DCPR-A positives scored significantly higher than DCPR-A negatives on the TAS-20 scores (t = 9.86, p < 0.001). The TAS-20 was not associated with any measure of depression, while the DCPR-A was significantly associated with the HDS and DSM-IV criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The DCPR-A had adequate sensitivity, specificity and accuracy, thus proving that the criterion has good validity. The differences in association found between alexithymia and depression suggest that they may be due to differences in the methods of investigation rather than to the constructs per se.
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 | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".