Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective:To investigate the alexithymia feature in the neurosis patients. Methods: 258 patients who met the neurosis's diagnosis criteria of CCMD-III were collected into the Neurosis group.The neurosis group was composed of 73 depressive disorder patients, 54 anxiety disorder patients, 65 patients with comorbidity of depression and anxiety disorder and 66 other neurosis patients.The control group was composed of 150 healthy persons. Neurosis group and control group were administered TAS-20 (the twenty-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale). Results: The neurosis group got higher total score and subscale scores of TAS-20 than the control group. There were significant difference in alexithymia among depressive disorder, anxiety disorder and comorbidity patients. The female patients in neurosis group got higher total score and subscale scores about externally oriented cognitive style than the control group. Conclusion: The patients with neurosis have significant alexithymia and female patients were more serious than male. There were significant difference in different neurosis category , especially in the subscale about externally oriented cognitive style.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".