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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.816
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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