MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2085219215 · doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.168

Relationship Between Health Anxiety and Alexithymia in an Iranian Sample

2012· article· en· W2085219215 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shahriar Shahidi, A. Molaie, Mohsen Dehghani

Bibliographic record

VenueProcedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlexithymiaAnxietyPsychologySample (material)Clinical psychologyPsychiatryChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of the present study was to investigate the relationship between alexithymia and health anxiety in a sample of Iranian participants. The sample consisted of 226 male and female students in Tehran who completed the 20 item Toronto Alexythemia Scale (TAS) developed by Bagby, Parker and Taylor (1994), the 28 item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ) developed by Goldberg (1972) and the 18 item Short Health Anxiety Inventory (SHAI) developed by Salkovskis, etal. (2002). Results showed that scores on alexithymia correlated significantly with scores on health anxiety. This significance was held when scores on depression, anxiety and somatic symptoms (as measured by GHQ) were controlled. It was further found that one of the subscales of SHAI, namely difficulty in identifying feelings (DIF), as well as somatic symptoms, significantly predicted reported health anxiety scores in male and female participants. It is argued that undifferentiated feelings exist in alexithymia causing physiological arousal. But because these individuals have difficulty in identifying, differentiating and regulating these feelings and thus associating them with related somatic symptoms, this physiological arousal remains unabated and is expressed in terms of health anxiety.

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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.257

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 head0.189
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations12
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProcedia - Social and Behavioral SciencesSame topicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207