MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2317940126 · doi:10.1097/hrp.0000000000000036

Changes in Alexithymia Following Psychological Intervention

2014· review· en· W2317940126 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHarvard Review of Psychiatry · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlexithymiaPsychological interventionPsychologyClinical psychologyMental healthIntervention (counseling)PsychotherapistPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alexithymia, a deficit characterized by difficulties identifying, differentiating, and articulating emotions, is associated with significant physical and mental health impairment. It is generally accepted that alexithymia has a negative impact on a variety of physical and mental health treatments. Less clear is the extent to which alexithymia itself can be modified. In this article we review studies that have examined the effects of psychological interventions on alexithymia. Taken together, findings from investigations included in this review suggest that alexithymia is partly modifiable with therapeutic interventions. Studies that directly targeted alexithymic symptoms tended to report significant reductions in alexithymia scores following treatment, whereas studies that measured changes in alexithymia but did not employ any psychological interventions specifically intended to treat alexithymia had more inconsistent results. We close by considering the practical implications of the findings, and by offering suggestions for future 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.576
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.346 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it