MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047446387 · doi:10.2190/22lb-hl0u-cpjp-wn6a

Expression of Anger and Alexithymia in Patients with Psychogenic Excoriation: A Preliminary Report

2002· article· en· W2047446387 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Celal Çalıkuşu, Başak Yücel, Aslıhan Polat, Can Baykal

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlexithymiaAngerPsychogenic diseaseToronto Alexithymia ScaleClinical psychologyPsychologyTraitEtiologyPsychiatryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.242

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Journal of Psychiatry in MedicineSame topicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207