Alexithymia in parents and adolescent anorexic daughters: comparing the responses to TSIA and TAS-20 scales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A growing body of literature has been focusing on individual alexithymia in anorexia nervosa, while there are only scarce and conflicting studies on alexithymia in the families of anorexic patients, despite the important role played by family dynamics in the development of the anorexic disorder, especially in adolescent patients. The aim of this study is to assess alexithymia in anorexic adolescent patients and in their parents using a multimethod measurement to gain more direct, in-depth knowledge of the problem. METHODS: Forty-six subjects, anorexic adolescent patients and their parents, underwent the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) along with the Toronto Structured Interview for Alexithymia (TSIA), which represents the first comprehensive clinically structured interview focused specifically on assessing alexithymia. The use of latent trait Rasch analysis allowed a comparison of the two instruments' sensitivity and ability to detect the presence and intensity of alexithymic components in patients and parents. RESULTS: Significant discordance was found between the two measures. The clinical instrument allowed detection of a greater level of alexithymia compared with the self-report, in particular in our adult parent sample. Moreover, a significant alexithymic gap emerged within families, particularly within parental couples, with noticeably more alexithymic fathers compared with the mothers. CONCLUSION: The TSIA clinical interview may be a more sensitive instrument in detecting alexithymia, minimizing parents' negation tendency. Clinical questions have arisen on how useful it would be to give greater weight to family functioning (ie, alexithymic gap) in order to predict the possibility of establishing a therapeutic alliance, and thus the outcome of the anorexic adolescent.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".