Adverse Childhood Experiences and the Structure of Personality in Patients with Takotsubo Syndrome Versus Myocardial Infarction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context and Aims: Psychosocial risk factors are known to result in either takotsubo syndrome (TTS) or myocardial infarction (MI). In this article, the results of a cross-sectional study are presented within the framework of “progressive somatization” by comparing the psychosocial traits of TTS and MI patients. Design/Subjects and Methods: 136 patients were administered a battery of questionnaires comprising the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ), the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20), the Experiences in Close Relationships-Revised Questionnaire, and the Operationalised Psychodynamic Diagnosis Structural Questionnaire (OPD-SQ). Life events prior to the onset of cardiac disease were recorded. Statistical Analysis: Descriptive statistics data were expressed in absolute numbers, percent, and mean and standard deviation. To identify differences between groups, T-tests for independent samples, Chi-square-tests and Mann-Whitney-Tests were used. Pearson correlations were computed to assess the relationship between the patient samples as well as between the patient samples and norms. Results: Few differences were found between TTS and MI patients, with both groups reporting moderate-to-severe “emotional neglect” in their childhood (CTQ). Compared to the norm group, TTS and MI patients showed higher values of “alexithymia” (TAS-20), and MI patients reported higher “attachment avoidance”. There are more “structural limitations of the personality” in TTS and MI patients than in a psychosomatic sample (OPD-SQ). Conclusions: TTS as well as MI patients suffer from “adverse childhood experiences” and “structural limitations of personality.” The results sustain the psychosomatic theory of progressive somatization that leads to severe bodily diseases. Patients might benefit from a specific psychotherapeutical support.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".