MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017398766 · doi:10.1521/pedi.15.3.245.19211

Alexithymia in Patients with Major Depressive Disorder and Comorbid Cluster C Personality Disorders: A 6-Month Follow-Up Study

2001· article· en· W2017398766 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kirsi Honkalampi, Jukka Hintikka, Risto Antikainen, Johannes Lehtonen, Heimo Viinamäki

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Personality Disorders · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlexithymiaPsychologyDepression (economics)Toronto Alexithymia ScaleBeck Depression InventoryClinical psychologyMajor depressive disorderComorbidityPsychiatryPersonality disordersPersonalityAnxietyMood

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors examined the association between alexithymia, cluster C personality disorders (CPD), and severity of depression among 121 outpatients with major depressive disorder (MDD) in a 6-month, follow-up study. Diagnosis of depression and CPD was confirmed by means of the Structured Clinical Interviews for DSM-III-R (SCID I and SCID II). Alexithymia was screened using the 20-item version of the Toronto Alexithymia Scale and severity of depression was assessed using the 21-item Beck Depression Inventory. Results indicated that alexithymic features are common in patients with MDD but often alleviated during recovery from depression. Moreover, comorbid CPD and severity of depression seemed to be associated with poorer recovery from alexithymia. The implications of these findings are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations63
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Personality DisordersSame topicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207