Attachment style and parental bonding: Relationships with fibromyalgia and alexithymia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Fibromyalgia (FM) is a chronic pain syndrome, and alexithymia, which is a condition that is characterised by deficits in emotional self-awareness, is highly prevalent among individuals with FM. Insecure attachment styles and inadequate parental care appear to play an important role in the onset and maintenance of both alexithymia and chronic pain. Therefore, the present study aimed to examine the associations between attachment styles, parental bonding, and alexithymia among patients with FM and healthy controls (HC). METHODS: All participants completed a battery of tests that assessed alexithymia, attachment styles, and parental bonding. Two logistic regression models were tested to examine whether these variables predict (a) group membership (i.e. patients with FM vs. HC) and (b) the likelihood of having alexithymia (i.e. among patients with FM and HC). RESULTS: Alexithymia (i.e. difficulty identifying and describing feelings subscales of the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale) significantly predicted group membership (i.e. the likelihood of having FM). On the other hand, educational level and dismissive attachment (i.e. the discomfort with closeness and relationships as secondary subscales of the Attachment Style Questionnaire) were the only significant predictors of the likelihood of having alexithymia. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight both the relevance of alexithymic traits to the definition of FM and centrality of an insecure attachment style to the manifestation of alexithymia.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".