Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To investigate the correlation factors of alexithymia in patients with somatoform disorders( SD).Methods 115 SD patients( study group) were assessed with a self-designed somatic symptom report card,Beck Depression Inventory( BDI),Chinese version of Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire( CERQ-C),Toronto Alexithymia Scale-20item( TAS-20),Childhood Trauma Questionnaire-Short Form( CTQ-SF). 101 healthy controls( control group) were assessed with TAS-20. Results Total score and all factor scores of TAS-20 in 109 SD patients who completed the study were significantly higher than those in control group( P 0. 01). Total score of TAS-20 and its factor scores of Ⅰ,Ⅱ,Ⅲ were correlated with many factors in somatic symptom report card,CERQ-C,CTQ-SF and BDI( P 0. 05 or P 0. 01). Total score of somatic symptom report card,factor score of body neglect in CTQ-SF,factor scores of respiration system symptom and sleep disorder in somatic symptom report card entered the regression equation for total score of TAS-20 by turns. Total score of BDI,factor score of urogenital system symptoms in somatic symptom report card and factor score of positive refocusing in CERQ-C entered the regression equation for factor score of I in TAS-20 by turns. Total score of somatic symptom report card and factor score of emotional abuse entered the regression equation for factor score of Ⅱ in TAS-20 II by turns. Conclusion Alexithymia is commonly existed in patients with somatoform disorder. The different dimensions of alexithymia in patients with somatoform disorder have different correlation factors,in which the somatic symptoms and depressive mood are the most important ones.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".