Alexithymie und spezifische Beziehungsmuster in einer klinischen Stichprobe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Alexithymia is characterized by deficits in perceiving, differentiating and regulating affects, both one's own affects and those of others. It is often related to interpersonal problems which are a major reason for seeking psychotherapy. This study assesses the relationship between alexithymia, specific relationship patterns and interpersonal problems in a clinical inpatient sample. METHODS: We evaluated alexithymia (Toronto-Alexithymia-Scale-26: TAS-26), relationship patterns (Relationship Patterns Questionnaire-II; RPQ-II) and interpersonal problems (Inventory of Interpersonal Problems: IIP) in 152 patients with various mental disorders upon admission to an inpatient clinic for psychosomatic medicine and psychotherapy. RESULTS: Alexithymia (TAS-20) was significantly negatively associated with self-assertion (RPQII) and significantly positively associated with overall interpersonal problems (IIP-total score). Specifically, the interpersonal style associated with alexithymia was characterized by cold, socially avoidant, nonassertive and exploitable behavior (IIP-subscales). CONCLUSIONS: Alexithymia in patients with mental disorders is linked to specific relationship patterns and interpersonal problems at the beginning of an inpatient psychotherapy. Because interpersonal problems, and especially the therapeutic alliance, are strong predictors of outcome in individual psychotherapy, specific attention should be paid to this relationship in the treatment of alexithymic patients.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".