Alexithymia and anxiety sensitivity in Turkish depressive, anxiety and somatoform disorder outpatients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective. To assess the relations between anxiety sensitivity, and dimensions of alexithymia in somatoform, anxiety and depressive disorder patients. Methods. The sample consisted of 124 patients with the diagnosis of depressive, anxiety, or somatoform spectrum disorders (DSM-IV). Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20), 16-item Anxiety Sensitivity Index (ASI), Hamilton Depression (HDRS), and Anxiety (HAS) scales were used. Results. The total sample (n=124) was divided into three diagnostic categories. There was one Depression Group (n=69). Due to small sample sizes, diagnoses in anxiety and somatoform spectrum disorders were combined in two relatively larger Anxiety (n=42) and Somatoform Groups (n=13) for statistical purposes. No statistically significant difference was found in the TAS-20 total or subscale scores between the three diagnostic groups. In all three diagnostic groups, there was a strong and significant positive correlation between ASI and TAS-20 total scores. In all three groups, there was a significant positive correlation between TAS-20 Factor 1 and ASI. In the Depression and Somatoform Groups, ASI scores were found to be significantly positively correlated with scores on TAS-20 Factor 2. Conclusion. This study reveals that alexithymia does not differentiate depressive, anxiety, or somatoform disorders, yet suggests a functional relation with anxiety sensitivity on a subscale basis.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".