Associations of somatic symptom attribution in Turkish patients with major depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are differences across ethno-cultural groups in the degree of somatization among patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). Studies showed that the attribution style of somatic symptoms is an important predictor of health outcome in depressed patients. AIMS: The aims of this study were to investigate associations of psychologizing, normalizing and somatizing attribution styles as measured by the Symptom Interpretation Questionnaire (SIQ) in Turkish patients with MDD. METHODS: Ninety patients who were diagnosed with a major depressive episode using a semi-structured interview were administered the SIQ to assess attribution styles, each of which was regressed on age, gender, educational level, depressive symptom severity, tendency for somatosensory amplification, current somatic symptoms and alexithymia. RESULTS: Scores on somatizing, psychologizing and normalizing attribution subscales of the SIQ were strongly correlated with each other. Somatosensory amplification and alexithymia were independent correlates of somatizing attributions. Higher levels of psychologizing and normalizing attributions were both related to more severe symptoms of depression and to somatosensory amplification. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggested that patients with higher levels of depressive symptoms were more likely to engage in a greater diversity of attribution styles as measured by the SIQ in our sample. Independent correlates of somatic symptom attribution in patients with MDD were found to be different from Western countries, suggestive of disparate cultural characteristics and help-seeking pathways and behaviour in Turkey.
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".