Comparative study of alexithymia in patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders, non-psychotic disorders and normal people
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the present study attempt has been made to investigate the extent of alexithymia in patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders, non-psychotic disorders and normal people. The research sample consisted of 60 patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders and 60 non-psychotic disorders from inpatients and outpatients of Mostafa Khomeini and Hazrat Rasoul hospitals, and 140 students from Tehran university (results of Leven test indicated the homogeneity of variance among three groups). Using Torento Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) they were compared. Results showed that alexithymia had significant difference in patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders and normal people; and non-psychotic disorders and normal people, but differences weren‘t significant between patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders and non-psychotic disorders. The difficulty in describing feelings, difficulty in identifying feelings and externally-oriented thinking were higher in patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders than other groups. In all groups, males had more problems in describing feelings and externally-oriented thinking. These results suggest that high level of alexithymia could contribute to a greater vulnerability for schizophrenia spectrum disorders and it could set males at high risk for these disorders. thus, it is essential to contrive a special treatment to decrease alexithymia in these patients.
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".