Alexithymia in parents and adolescents with generalised anxiety disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundThe relationship between generalised anxiety disorder (GAD) and alexithymia has been poorly studied in adolescents. The present study examined the alexithymia levels in adolescents with GAD and their parents compared with healthy control participants (adolescents and their parents).MethodThe sample included 300 participants: 50 adolescents with GAD and 50 healthy adolescents, 13–18 years of age, and their 200 parents (100 mothers and 100 fathers). The Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School‐Age Children was performed to evaluate adolescents’ mental health while the 20‐item Toronto Alexithymia Scale was performed to assess alexithymia levels in both adolescents and their parents.ResultsAdolescents with GAD showed a significantly higher rate of alexithymia when compared with control adolescents. The mothers of adolescents with GAD showed an alexithymia score higher than did the controls’ mothers. The fathers of the two groups showed no differences of in their rate of alexithymia. Moreover, in the clinical sample, adolescent and maternal alexithymia scores were not correlated, while significant directed correlations were found between these adolescents and their own fathers.ConclusionsOur findings show an association between GAD and alexithymia in adolescents. A significant presence of alexithymic traits in the mothers of the patients with GAD was shown. An intergenerational transmission of alexithymia could be supposed but this cannot be a linear mechanism. The assessment of alexithymia in adolescents with psychological disorders, and in their parents, could be useful to plan a more targeted therapeutic approach.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".