2800 – Alexithymia and Functional Somatic Symptoms Among Chinese Adolescents: Is Somatosensory Amplification a Moderator or Mediator?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Research consistently has evidenced the association among alexithymia, somatosensory amplification (SA) and functional somatic symptoms (FSS). Yet, the underlying mechanism of such relationship has not been explored among Chinese adolescents. This study aims to evaluate whether SA exerts a moderating or mediating effect on the alexithymia-FSS link. Methods: Analyses were based on 269 adolescents with mild to severe depressive symptoms (Center of Epidemiological Studies—Depression Scale (CES-D)>15) recruited from a school-based study. They completed the Somatosensory Amplification Scale (ChSAS), the Somatic symptom subscale of CES-D and the Toronto Alexithymia Scale-Short form (TAS-9-C). Three facets of alexithymia (difficulty identifying feelings (DIF), difficulty describing feelings (DDF) and externally-oriented thinking (EOT)) were force-entered in each univariate regression model. Facets of alexithymia that were found significant (p < 0.05) were subsequently included in regression models to test the mediating and moderating effects of SA on FSS. Results: Results of hierarchical regression analysis found that both DIF (standardized β = 0.37, p < 0.001) and DDF (standardized β = 0.12, p = 0.043) were significant predictors of somatic symptoms. A moderate mediating effect was observed for SA on the DIF-somatic symptoms (Sobel test z = 2.13, p = 0.03). The results also showed a significant moderating effect of DIF×SA on somatic symptoms (standardized β = 0.49, p < 0.001). Conclusions: SA qualifies as a mediator and a moderator between alexithymia and FSS. It indicated that adolescents with alexithymia are likely to report more FSS due to the tendency to amplify their somatic sensation. These results suggest that alexithymia-specific psychotherapeutic methods should be further developed using emotional validation and processing techniques.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.004 | 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".