Dissociation and alexithymia among men with alcoholism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the relationship between alexithymia and dissociation among men with alcoholism. METHODS: Participants were 176 patients consecutively admitted to the inpatient unit of a addiction treatment center. The Toronto Alexithymia Scale, the Symptom Checklist-Revised, the Dissociative Experiences Scale, the Beck Depression Inventory, the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, and the Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test were administered to all participants. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients were considered as having alexithymia. The alexithymic group had a significantly higher rate of dissociative taxon members (patients with pathological dissociation; 62.3%) according to Bayesian probability. Trait anxiety, overall psychiatric symptom severity, and pathological dissociation predicted alexithymia on covariance analysis. A multivariate analysis of covariance demonstrated that these predictors were related only to difficulty of identifying feelings, whereas trait anxiety was a significant covariant for difficulty of expressing feelings as well. CONCLUSION: Alexithymic phenomena are interrelated with dissociation and chronic anxiety among men with alcoholism. The relevance of this triad for prevention and treatment of alcoholism deserves interest in further research.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".