MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2958542330 · doi:10.3389/fneur.2019.00774

Alexithymia, Metacognition, and Theory of Mind in Children and Preadolescents With Migraine Without Aura (MWoA): A Case-Control Study

2019· article· en· W2958542330 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Giulia Natalucci, Noemi Faedda, Alessia Quinzi, Danilo Alunni Fegatelli, Annarita Vestri, Giada Turturo, Paola Verdecchia, Benedetta Bellini, Chiara Pirisi, Dario Calderoni, Flavia Giannotti, Rita Cerutti, Teodosio Giacolini, Vincenzo Guidetti

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Neurology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlexithymiaAuraPsychologyMigraineClinical psychologyToronto Alexithymia ScaleMetacognitionDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatryCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Some studies have demonstrated the high impact of headache and migraine in several areas of children and adolescents’ life. In recent years, there has been an increase in scientific interest in the relationship between migraine and emotional regulation, investigating the possible consequences of emotional dysregulation on physical and mental health. While some studies have been carried out on the relationship between alexithymia and headache or migraine (especially in adults), no data exist on relationship between Theory of Mind (TOM), metacognition and alexithymia in children and adolescents with migraine. Methods: Children with diagnosis of migraine without aura (MWoA) (36 males and 34 females) were compared to a healthy control group (31 males and 39 females). The age range was from 8 to 13 years in both groups. All children completed the Alexithymia Questionnaire for Children (AQC) for the assessment of alexithymia levels and the Domain of Social Perception included in the NEPSY-II to evaluate levels of TOM. Metacognitive development was evaluated with Io e La Mia Mente for children aged between 8 and 10 years and with Metacognitions Questionnaire for Children (MCQ-C) for children from 11 to 13. Results: There were no differences between children with MWoA and the control group in metacognitive abilities; only in the subscale “Negative Meta Worrying” of MCQ-C girls scored higher than boys, regardless of the group they were part of. Also, in the NEPSY-II subscale there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups. Children with MWoA scored higher in the AQC subscales “Difficulty Identifying Feelings” and “Difficulty Describing Feelings” than controls. Moreover, children between 8-10 years statistically differed from older children in “Difficulty Identifying Feelings” and in Total Score. Conclusion: Our data suggest that children with MWoA have no metacognitive and TOM problems compared to a healthy group. The experimental group showed higher traits of alexithymia, confirming what suggested by other studies in the literature. Future research will have to focus on migraine with aura and tension-type headache to evaluate any differences with children with MWoA.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations12
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in NeurologySame topicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207