A meta-analytic study examining the relationship between alexithymia and dissociation in psychiatric and non-clinical populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alexithymia and dissociation have been consistently linked in the literature, particularly in psychiatric populations. Both arise from a disconnection between conscious aspects of self-experiences and perceptions at both the mental self and bodily levels. This results in difficulty integrating thoughts, feelings and experiences into consciousness and memory, negatively impacting emotion awareness/regulation and reflective functioning. We conducted a meta-analysis to examine the strength of the relationship between alexithymia and dissociation in both clinical and non-clinical populations. Studies using two common measures of these constructs were included (i.e., the Toronto Alexithymia Scale and the Dissociative Experiences Scale). Analyzing the effect sizes derived from 19 studies (including a total of 4664 participants) revealed moderate to strong relationships between alexithymia and dissociation. The strength of the association increased in clinical and younger aged non clinical populations. These findings are discussed in the context of treatment recommendations.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".