2799 – A Comparison of Depressive Symptom Manifestation: Adolescents with Low and High Level of Alexithymia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: There is a dearth of literature on the effect of alexithymia on somatizing depression. Yet, the symptom manifestation of depression among people with alexithymia has not been well-investigated. The objective of this study was to examine symptom presentation in adolescents having high (HDA) or low (LDA) degrees of alexithymia. Methods: A total of 590 adolescents aged 11–18 years participated in this school-based study. of 269 adolescents with mild to severe depressive symptoms (Center of Epidemiological Studies—Depression Scale (CES-D)>15), 136 participants were selected and identified as either having HDA (n = 100) or LDA (n = 36). Confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) tested the fit of a correlated two-factor structure (somatic and affective symptoms of CES-D) to the data. HDA adolescents were compared to those with LDA on somatic and affective symptoms of depression, negative affect and somatization symptoms. Results: Results of CFAs confirmed the two-factor model in HDA (CFI = 0.863) and LDA (CFI = 0.874) adolescents. HDA adolescents reported more somatic symptoms of depression (t = −2.97, p = 0.004) and negative affect (t = −3.53, p = 0.001) compared with LDA adolescents. No significant difference was observed between HDA and LDA adolescents on affective symptoms of depression and somatization symptoms (p > 0.05). Conclusions: Our findings underscore that (1) HDA adolescents reported affective symptoms of depression in a similar manner to LDA adolescents, and (2) though the tendency toward reporting somatic symptom of depression is evident, HDA adolescents did not report significantly more somatization symptoms. These findings refute the notion that patients with alexithymia articulate their emotional and psychological distress primarily through physical symptomatology.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".