Peer Review #3 of "Importance of considering interoceptive abilities in alexithymia assessment (v0.2)"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background.Recent studies have shown that people with high alexithymia scores have decreased interoceptive abilities, which can be associated with psychological and physical disorders.Early assessments of the alexithymia trait included the evaluation of these abilities through the dimension measuring the difficulty in identifying and distinguishing between feelings and bodily sensations (the 26item Toronto Alexithymia Scale; TAS-26).However, the revised version of the TAS, the TAS-20, contains a three-factor solution that does not involve a dimension assessing interoceptive abilities.However, the 3 items allowing the evaluation of these abilities are still present in the TAS-20.In this context, we hypothesized that the 3 items which assess interoceptive abilities in the TAS-20 should constitute an independent factor.In addition to exploring the internal structure of the TAS-20, we examined its external validity by assessing the relationships between the new factors and self-reported measures of personality trait and psychological and physical health.Method.Two online studies (N=253 and N=287) were performed.The participants completed the TAS-20 and a set of psychological questionnaires (e.g., anxiety, depression) and health questions (e.g., "Do you suffer from a somatic disorder?").The structure of the TAS-20 was examined using exploratory factor analysis (EFA), followed by an investigation of the relationships between the resulting new factors and other psychological and health data using regressions.In both studies, EFA revealed a new structure of the questionnaire consisting of four dimensions: (1) difficulty in the awareness of feelings, (2) externally oriented thinking, (3) difficulty in interoceptive abilities, and (4) poor affective sharing.The first factor was positively associated with all self-reported psychological and personality trait measures while the third factor was associated more with somatic disorders and medication intake. Results.Our results suggest the presence of a new latent factor in the assessment of alexithymia that reflects interoceptive abilities specifically related to health and personality trait outcomes.In accordance with the results and the literature, it seems important to include an assessment of interoceptive abilities when considering the evaluation of alexithymia.The next step would be to develop a valid measure of these abilities.
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 | 0.015 | 0.150 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.331 | 0.186 |
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".