MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2354357833

Children's Somatization Symptoms and Its Relation with Alexithymia and Psychological Meltreatment

2013· article· en· W2354357833 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Wei Ji-huai

Bibliographic record

VenueZhongguo linchuang xinlixue zazhi · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlexithymiaSomatizationToronto Alexithymia ScalePsychologyNeglectClinical psychologyPsychiatryAnxiety
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: To investigate the prevalence of children's somatization symptoms and the relationship with alexithymia、psychological meltreatment and neglect,and to build relation model of this four.Methods: 940 primary school students were assessed with a series of questionnaires including Children's Somatization symptoms Inventory Scale(CSI)、the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale(TAS-20) and Child Psychological Maltreatment and Neglect Scale.Results: ①The average score of children's somatization symptoms inventory is 7.40(M=7.40,SD=7.07),27.3% of the children reported at least one serious somatization symptoms,There are significant differences in somatization symptoms from different gender and different grades;②The correlation coefficients of the TAS-20 and CSI is 0.32(P0.01);③The direct effect of alexithymia to children's somatization symptoms is 0.39,and the indirect effect of child psychological meltreatment and neglect to somatization symptoms are 0.09 and 0.13.Conclusion: ①The detection rate of children's somatization symptoms in this sample is 27.3%,the pain/weak symptoms is the most common symptoms;②There is low to moderate correlation between alexithymia and children somatization symptoms;③Alexithymia mediates the relationship between somatization symptoms and psychological meltreatment and neglect.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.720

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZhongguo linchuang xinlixue zazhiSame topicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207