The impact of alexithymia on somatization after traumatic brain injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: High rates of alexithymia have been reported following traumatic brain injury (TBI). Difficulty modulating emotional states has been shown to increase the risk of affective distress and the tendency to express this distress in the form of physical symptoms. The current study therefore examined relationships between alexithymia, affective distress and somatization in a TBI sample. METHOD: Eighty-three patients with TBI completed the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) and the Symptom Checklist (SCL-90-R). RESULTS: Alexithymic individuals reported higher ratings of anxiety, low mood and somatic symptoms. Alexithymia accounted for a significant amount of variance in anxiety, depression and somatization ratings. Scores on sub-scale 1 of the TAS-20 (difficulty identifying feelings) made a significant unique contribution to explaining somatization ratings after controlling for the influence of anxiety and depression ratings. CONCLUSION: Alexithymia after TBI increases the risk of affective disturbance and somatization. It needs to be identified at an early stage to direct rehabilitation interventions and improve prospects for psychosocial outcome.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".