MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2799409142 · doi:10.1097/psy.0000000000000592

Association Between Alexithymia and Risk of Incident Cardiovascular Diseases in the SUpplémentation en VItamines et Minéraux AntioXydants (SU.VI.MAX) Cohort

2018· article· en· W2799409142 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Emmanuel Wiernik, Cédric Lemogne, Léopold Fezeu, Nathalie Arnault, Serge Herçberg, Emmanuelle Kesse‐Guyot, Pilar Galán

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychosomatic Medicine · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHazard ratioMedicineAlexithymiaProspective cohort studyProportional hazards modelHypertriglyceridemiaCohortConfidence intervalBody mass indexPopulationInternal medicineDemographyPsychiatryEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Although it has been suggested that alexythymia is associated with cardiovascular diseases, studies are scarce and a causal relationship is questionable. This study explored the prospective association between alexithymia and cardiovascular events in middle-aged participants without cardiovascular history at baseline. METHODS: The 26-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-26) was completed by 5586 participants of the French SUpplémentation en VItamines et Minéraux AntioXydants cohort (41.4% of men, M [SD] age = 52.2 [6.3] years) in 1996-1997. Covariates measured at baseline included age, occupational status, depressive symptoms, smoking status, body mass index, hypertension, diabetes, hypercholesterolemia, and hypertriglyceridemia. The follow-up ran from January 1, 1998, to the date of the first cardiovascular event, the date of death or September 1, 2007, whichever occurred first. Cardiovascular events were validated by an independent expert committee. Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals were computed with Cox regressions. RESULTS: During an average of 8.9 years of follow-up, 171 first cardiovascular events were validated. After adjustment for age, sex, and occupational status, there was no association between baseline alexithymia and cardiovascular events at follow-up (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval] for 15 points of TAS-26 = 1.00 [0.81-1.23], p > .99). Adjusting for all covariates, using binary TAS-26 cut-offs or TAS-26 subscores yielded similar nonsignificant results. CONCLUSIONS: In this large prospective study, alexithymia and cardiovascular events were not associated among a nonclinical population. This casts some doubt on whether alexithymia could be a meaningful target in the prevention of cardiovascular diseases. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00272428).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.634

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychosomatic MedicineSame topicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207