Relationship between Alexithymia and Panic Disorder: A Longitudinal Study to Answer an Open Question
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the present study, we evaluated whether patients with panic disorder (PD) in complete remission were more alexithymic than normal controls. METHODS: Fifty-two PD patients (both during the acute phase of the disorder and after at least 2 months of complete remission) and 52 age- and sex-matched normal subjects completed the Toronto Alexithymia Scale-20 and the Hamilton Rating Scales for Anxiety (Ham-A) and for Depression. RESULTS: A higher rate of alexithymia was found in PD patients than in controls (3.8%) both during the acute phase (44.2%; p < 0.001) and after remission of the disorder (21.2%; p = 0.008). During remission, PD patients showed: (1) Ham-A scores significantly higher than controls (p < 0.001); (2) only an elevation of the 'difficulty in identifying feeling' (DIF) dimension of alexithymia, and (3) a positive relationship between Ham-A scores and DIF levels (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: After remission of panic attacks, phobic avoidance and anticipatory anxiety, PD patients are more alexithymic (even though the levels of alexithymia decreased after the resolution of the acute phase of PD) and anxious than controls. This finding might be explained by an overlap between cognitive aspects of PD and the DIF dimension of alexithymia, since alexithymic and anxious levels are positively related.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".