Clinical correlates of alexithymia among patients with personality disorder
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The literature portrays patients with alexithymia as unusual and difficult to treat; research to date has not clarified the nature of this condition. This study addressed associations between alexithymia and constructs relevant to clinical intervention, namely attachment, quality of object relations, emotion regulation, defense style, personality disorder, and treatment outcome. Fifty-one patients admitted to an intensive group-oriented day treatment program were recruited. Prior to therapy, patients were administered self-report and structured interview measures of predictor and outcome variables; outcome measures were re-administered at completion of the 18-week program. Alexithymia was common in this sample, with four of five patients endorsing moderate or greater problems. Associations with attachment avoidance, primitive object relations, suppression of emotional expression, use of immature defenses, and severity of borderline personality disorder were identified. Alexithymia did not, however, predict outcome. Findings are considered in terms of how the construct informs views of personality disorder.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 it