Social Situation of Expectant Mothers and Alexithymia 31 Years Later in Their Offspring: A Prospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We studied the association between alexithymia in adulthood and social situation of the child's family at the time of the child's birth. METHODS: The study forms part of the prospective Northern Finland 1966 Birth Cohort Project. The original material consisted of all 12,058 live-born children in the provinces of Lapland and Oulu in Finland with an expected delivery date during 1966. The material represents 96% of all births in the region. In 1997 a 31-year follow-up study was made on part of the initial sample. The 20-item version of the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) was given to 5983 participants of the field study. Of them, 85% returned the questionnaire properly completed. Factors indicative of the social situation of the child's family were already gathered during pregnancy and the time of birth from the mothers, thus eliminating recall bias. RESULTS: Alexithymia was more common in subjects from rural than urban dwelling areas. Unwanted children or subjects born into families with many children also exhibited an association with alexithymia in adulthood. CONCLUSIONS: Maternal social situation and environment predict alexithymia in the offspring.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".