MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072707544 · doi:10.1521/pedi.2008.22.5.496

Parental Bonding and Personality Disorder: The Mediating Role of Alexithymia

2008· article· en· W2072707544 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Chiara De Panfilis, Paola Salvatore, Carlo Marchesi, Roberto Cazzolla, Matteo Tonna, Carlo Maggini

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Personality Disorders · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlexithymiaPsychologyMediationFeelingToronto Alexithymia ScalePersonalityClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatrySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study explored whether alexithymic features mediate the effect of perceived adverse parenting during childhood on being diagnosed with a PD in adulthood. Two hundred sixty-five psychiatric outpatients were evaluated with the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20), the Parental Bonding Instrument (PBI), the Structured Interview for DSM-IV Personality, the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders, the Clinical Global Impression scale, and the Global Assessment of Functioning scale. The statistical model for mediation proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986) was employed to detect whether the TAS scores account for the relation between PBI scores and a PD diagnosis. The results indicated that although altered parental bonding (and specifically, excessive maternal protection) may enhance the risk of PD, its effect is completely mediated by the alexithymic feature Difficulty Describing Feelings to Others (DDF), after controlling for gender, age, educational level, type, severity and age of onset of Axis I disorders. Therefore, this study suggests that the presence of DDF accounts for the effect of maternal overprotection as a risk factor for PD.

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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.549

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.255 · 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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Personality DisordersSame topicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207