Alexithymia and somatisation in patients with remitted major depression and their impact on social functioning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study is to investigate the level of social functioning, alexithymia and somatisation in patients with major depressive disorder who achieved full remission and to examine the impact of alexithymia and somatisation on social functioning in patients with major depression who are in full remission. METHODS: A total of 117 outpatients with major depression and full remission and 42 healthy controls were included in the study. The participants were administrated Affect Underpinned by Severity and Social Impairment Questionnaire (AUSSI) to evaluate social functioning and depressive symptoms, Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS) to evaluate alexithymia and Somatosensory Amplification Scale (SSAS) to evaluate somatisation. Forty-one patients who scored higher or equal to the cut-off score of 5 on the social impairment subscale of AUSSI were classified as having impaired social functioning, whereas 76 patients who scored less than 5 were classified as having unimpaired social functioning. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the groups for AUSSI mood symptoms subscale score. Patients with impaired social functioning scored higher than controls on TAS score. Patients with both impaired and unimpaired social functioning scored higher than controls on SSAS scores. The only significant predictor of social impairment in patients with major depression who were in full remission was AUSSI mood symptoms subscale score. CONCLUSION: Patients with major depression may still have social impairment after remission. Depressive symptoms are the most important predictors of social functioning in patients with remitted depression. Maximum precautions should be taken to treat depression without leaving any residual symptoms.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".