Alexithymia, resilience, somatic sensations and their relationships with suicide ideation in drug naïve patients with first‐episode major depression: An exploratory study in the “real world” everyday clinical practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The present study is aimed at revaluating alexithymia, somatic sensations, resilience and their relationships with suicide ideation in drug naïve adult outpatients suffering from first episode major depression (MD). METHODS: Data of 103 adult outpatients (49 men, 56 women) with a diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 4th edition, text revision (DSM-IV-TR) diagnosis of MD were analysed. Alexithymia was measured using the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) and resilience with the 25 items Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) whereas depression was evaluated using the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, somatic sensations with the Body Sensations Questionnaire and suicide ideation with Scale of Suicide Ideation (SSI). RESULTS: Gender comparisons between all demographic and clinical variables showed no significant differences in all variables. Subjects who were found positive for alexithymia showed higher scores on all clinical variables controlling for age, gender and duration of the current episode. In a linear regression model, lower scores on CD-RISC and Difficulty in Identifying Feelings dimension of TAS-20 were significantly predictive of higher scores on SSI. CONCLUSIONS: Alexithymia and low resilience were significant predictors of increased suicide ideation in a first MD episode. However, study limitations must be considered and future research needs are being discussed.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".