Using the Body When There Are No Words for Feelings: Alexithymia and Somatization in Self-Harming Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present case-control study aimed to investigate the relationship between alexithymia and somatic complaints in the psychopathological setting of non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI). A clinical sample of 134 adolescents (115 females; 85.5%) from 12 to 18 years old engaging in NSSI was compared with a control group of 243 high-school students (157 females; 64.6%) from 13 to 18 years old. Data were collected using two questionnaires: The Youth Self-Report 11-18 and the 20 Toronto Alexithymia Scale. In both cases and controls, the presence of somatization and alexithymia was associated with more severe psychopathological problems. Analyses were conducted to explore the association between somatic disorders and alexithymia. In the clinical group, somatic complaints were reported by 95.9% of alexithymic individuals, whereas only 44.3% of alexithymic adolescents reported somatic complaints. A one-way relationship emerged between somatization and alexithymia: while alexithymia would seem to be a factor associated with self-injury, somatic disorders were strongly associated with alexithymia, but not necessarily with self-injury. Among the self-harming adolescents, those with both alexithymia and somatization had a more severe psychopathological picture than the individuals with alexithymia but no somatization. This would suggest that, in the setting of NSSI, greater difficulty with identifying feelings is associated with somatization, and alexithymia would be an attribute common to self-harming behavior and somatization, both of which are characterized by the body being used to express psychological and emotional problems. Future research could further investigate alexithymia in self-harming individuals, in relation to any presence or absence of somatic disorders, with longitudinal assessments on any differences in their manifestation of self-injury and its psychopathological correlates.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".