Relationship between theory of mind functions with attachment styles and alexithymia in Somatoform Pain Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is sparse information available in the literature regarding attachment styles and theory of mind functions with somatoform pain disorder. Thus, the aim of the present study is to investigate the relation between somatoform pain disorder and attachment styles, theory of mind functions and alexithymia. Thirty consecutive somatoform pain disorder patients and age, education level and gender ratio matched 30 controls enrolled for the study. SCID-I Structured Clinical Therapy Patient Form, Adult Attachment Scale (AAS), Toronto Alexithymia Scala (TAS-20) Reading Mind from the Eyes Turkish Form (Eyes Test) procedures were applied to the somatoform pain disorder patients that are investigated. According to results; scores of somatoform pain disorder patients with regards to AAS avoidant subscale score, Difficulty Describing Feelings subscale, Difficulty Identifying Feeling subscale, Externally-Oriented Thinking subscale, total Alexithymia Scale scores have been found significantly higher than that of controls (p
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".