Sifneos alexithymia questionnaire in assessment of general alexithymia in patients with breast disease and breast cancer: a prospective case-control study in Finland.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In 1973, Sifneos introduced the word 'alexithymia' to describe the inability to find appropriate words to describe one's feelings. To the Authors' knowledge, the associations between alexithymia and the risk of breast cancer (BC) are rarely considered together in a prospective study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In an extension of the Kuopio Breast Cancer Study 115 women with breast symptoms were semi-structurally interviewed in-depth, as well as being asked to complete standardised questionnaires (Beck, Forsen, MADRS, Spielberger), and all study variables were obtained before any diagnostic procedures were carried out. The investigator estimated the alexithymia of the study participants using a 5-point scale. RESULTS: The clinical examination and biopsy showed BC in 34 patients, benign breast disease (BBD) in 53 patients, and 28 individuals were shown to be healthy (HSS). There was a significance for the women with BC to have more alienation from own body (Function C, p=0.03) (mean Alexithymia score, 2.82) than those of the BBD (mean Alexithymia score, 3.40) and HSS groups (mean Alexithymia score, 3.29). The BC group had significantly more alienation from own experience (Function D, p=0.01) (mean Alexithymia score, 2.82) than the patients in the BBD group (mean Alexithymia score, 3.51) and in the HSS group (mean Alexithymia score, 3.36). The BC group also had more alienation from own feelings (Function E, p=0.05) and more deficit in self-experience (Function F, p=0.05) than the patients in the BBD group and the patients in the HSS group. CONCLUSION: The results of this study show that the patients with BC tended to have an increased risk for alexithymia.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".