Alexithymia and suicide risk among patients with schizophrenia: A cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives The aim of the present study was to evaluate the prevalence of alexithymia and its relationships with psychopathological features and suicide risk in a sample of adult patients with a DSM-IV diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia. Method A mixed male-female sample of 60 subjects (30 males and 30 females) was evaluetd with the following rating scales: Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20), Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms (SANS), Scale for the Assessment of Positive Symptoms (SAPS), Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia (CDSS), Scale for Suicidal Ideation (SSI), State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). RESULTS. 22 subjects (36.7%) were categorized as alexithymic (TAS-20 scores ≥ 61). Alexithymics showed more severe negative and depressive symptoms and increased suicide risk than nonalexithymics. However, the results of a linear regression with SSI score as dependent variable showed that Difficulty in Identifying and Describing Feelings dimensions of TAS-20 and higher CDSS scores were significantly associated with higher scores on the Scale for Suicide Ideation. Conclusions: The presence of alexithymia in schizophrenia may be related to higher risk of suicide ideation and more severe depressive symptoms, independently by the severity of positive and negative symptoms. However, results are preliminary and limitations must be considered.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".