Expression of Anger and Alexithymia in Patients with Psychogenic Excoriation: A Preliminary Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Psychogenic excoriation (PE), which is characterized by lesions formed by self-picking, has a significant place among the dermatoses related to psychological factors. Emotions, particularly anger that cannot be expressed, may be important in the etiology. The objective of this study was to evaluate the sociodemographic characteristics of patients with PE and with another psychodermatosis, and compare them in terms of anger, manner of anger expression, and alexithymia. METHODS: Thirty-one consecutive subjects with PE and thirty-one patients with chronic urticaria were recruited from an outpatient dermatology clinic. All of the subjects completed Toronto Alexithymia Scale and Trait Anger and Anger Expression Scale. RESULTS: PE patients had higher levels of anger (p < .01), tended not to show their anger (p < .05), and were more alexithymic (p < .05). There was also a positive correlation between anger and alexithymia scores (r = .49, p < .05). DISCUSSION: PE, a severe and chronic psychiatric and dermatological problem, may be related to affect-regulation, particularly anger and alexithymia. Due to the fact that it has a different place among psychodermatoses, individuals with PE might benefit from learning how to regulate their affects other than by excoriation.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".