Stressful Life Events, Social Support, Attachment Security and Alexithymia in Vitiligo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It has often been suggested that stress might trigger vitiligo. However, only one study supported this hypothesis, and no study explored the role of other personality or social factors. METHODS: Out-patients experiencing a recent onset or exacerbation of vitiligo (n = 31) were compared with out-patients with skin conditions in which psychosomatic factors are commonly were regarded as negligible (n = 116). Stressful events during the last 12 months were assessed with Paykel's Interview for Recent Life Events. Attachment style, alexithymia and social support were assessed with the 'Experiences in Close Relationships' questionnaire, the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20), and the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support, respectively. RESULTS: Cases and controls did not differ regarding the total number of events and the number of undesirable, uncontrollable or major events. Three or more uncontrollable events had occurred more frequently among cases than controls. Perceived social support was lower in cases than in controls. Cases scored higher than controls on anxious attachment, tended towards higher scores on avoidant attachment and were classified more often as insecure. Cases scored higher than controls on the TAS-20 and were classified more often as alexithymic or borderline alexithymic. The occurrence of many uncontrollable events, alexithymia and anxious attachment were associated with vitiligo also in multiple logistic regression analysis. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that vulnerability to vitiligo is not increased by stressful events, except for many uncontrollable events. Alexithymia, insecure attachment and poor social support appear to increase susceptibility to vitiligo, possibly through deficits in emotion regulation or reduced ability to cope effectively with stress.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".