[Alopecia areata and alexithymia].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Whether or not psychological factors play an important role in the pathogenesis of alopecia areata (AA) is a controversial issue. AA has had a tendency to be associated with high avoidance in attachment relationships, high alexithymic characteristics, and poor social support. Some studies have suggested that personality characteristics might modulate individual susceptibility to AA. The role of stressful life events in the appearance of AA is uncertain. In addition to reports associating anxiety and affective disorders with the onset of AA, there have also been studies that have not confirmed such an association. This case-control study was undertaken with the aim of determining the significance of stressful life events and other psychological factors in the etiopathogenesis of AA. METHOD: A total of 43 patients (26 male, 17 female) with AA and 53 age-and gender-matched healthy controls selected from hospital staff and their relatives (28 male, 25 female) were enrolled in the study. Both patients and controls were evaluated using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Stress Scale, and Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS). RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the patient and control groups with regard to the total scores of stressful major life events, depression, and anxiety (p>0.05). However, TAS scores in patients with AA were higher than in controls (p=0.013). CONCLUSION: The present study found no evidence that stressful major life events, depression, or anxiety have a role in the etiopathogenesis of AA, but AA tended to be associated with alexithymia. It has been suggested that alexithymics may suffer from unnoticed chronic stress with physiological, endocrine, and immune consequences, and that alexithymia is associated with impaired immune response. We suggest that alexithymia may play a role in the pathogenesis of AA via stress-induced immunological mechanisms.
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) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".