MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2899348408 · doi:10.1080/02699052.2018.1531302

Alexithymia is associated with aggressive tendencies following traumatic brain injury

2018· article· en· W2899348408 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Claire Williams, Rodger Llewellyn Wood, Holly L. Howe

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain Injury · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlexithymiaPsychologyToronto Alexithymia ScaleAggressionClinical psychologyNeuropsychologyTraumatic brain injuryCognitionFeelingPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Aggressive behavior is a frequent legacy of traumatic brain injury (TBI). This study explores the question of how alexithymia, which is associated with deficits in social cognition and empathy, may predispose individuals to aggressive tendencies after head trauma. METHOD: A total of 47 individuals referred for routine neuropsychological assessment and advice on the management of long-term neuropsychological sequelae after TBI and 72 demographically matched controls completed the 20-Item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) and Buss Perry Aggression Questionnaire (BPAQ; self and proxy). RESULTS: The incidence of alexithymia and aggressive tendencies was significantly higher in the group with TBI. After controlling for covariates, alexithymia explained an additional 29% of variance in BPAQ total scores in the group with TBI and 11.1% in the control group. Of the three TAS-20 sub-scales, 'difficulty describing feelings' emerged as a consistent unique predictor of aggression scores. CONCLUSIONS: Higher levels of alexithymia are associated with greater aggressive tendencies post-TBI. The findings offer important theoretical and empirical insights into the prediction of aggression after TBI.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations20
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain InjurySame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207