MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028176636 · doi:10.1159/000080132

Exploring the Relations between Depression, Somatization, Dissociation and Alexithymia – Overlapping or Independent Constructs?

2004· article· en· W2028176636 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychopathology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlexithymiaPsychologySomatizationDissociation (chemistry)Clinical psychologyDepression (economics)Developmental psychologyPsychiatryAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to extend our knowledge of associations among the constructs of alexithymia, depression, somatization and dissociation. SAMPLING AND METHODS: 924 nonclinical subjects answered questions about depression (21-item Beck Depression Inventory), somatization (13-item somatization part of Symptom Check List-90), dissociation (28-item Dissociative Experiences Scale) and alexithymia (20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale). In addition, a 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) was administered to detect psychiatric distress among subjects. RESULTS: The results suggested that there was a significant clinical correlation between somatization, dissociation, depression and alexithymia (rho varied from 0.31 to 0.56). The principal component analysis revealed the presence of four components: depression, somatization, dissociation and alexithymia. The use of factor scores diminished the covariance between measures (rho varied from -0.10 to 0.01 between the factor scores). There was almost no correlation between the dissociation factor (rho = 0.06) and alexithymia factor (rho = 0.09) scores and general distress (GHQ-12). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that while somatization, dissociation, depression and alexithymia are distinct constructs, they correlate to a considerable extent. The use of factor analysis and factor scores should be considered to diminish covariance between the above constructs. Comparing results between factored and unfactored results may prove illuminating. As a case in point, the results suggest that the part of dissociation that coincides with other constructs (overlaps) is associated with distress, whereas the distinct part of dissociation (no shared covariance) is not associated with distress. The same applies to the alexithymia construct. Longitudinal studies are needed to show whether there is a trait such as a relatively stable dissociation component and also whether a separate state-dependent dissociation component exists that is associated with coincident distress, somatization and depression.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.344

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.246 · 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