A study of alexithymia in schizophrenia and some somatic diseases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To study alexithymia in schizophrenia and some somatic diseases. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study included 60 patients with paranoid schizophrenia (ICD-10 F20.0), 55 hypertensive patients with primary heart disease (I11), 53 patients with chronic ischemic heart disease (I25) and 51 patients with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (E10). To assess the manifestations of alexithymia, the Toronto alexithymia scale (TAS-26) was used. The Positive and negative syndrome scale (PANSS) was administered to patients with schizophrenia. RESULTS: The average scores on TAS were higher in patients with schizophrenia compared to patients with somatic diseases (109,73 and 81,66, respectively). During the analysis of responses to TAS statements, features of a general and particular nature were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Alexithymia is not a property characteristic of psychosomatic diseases and neurotic disorders, and is detected in schizophrenic patients and patients with somatic diseases. The relationship of alexithymia with negative symptoms of schizophrenia suggests that it might impact on interpersonal relations, social adaptation and development of autistic symptoms in patients.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".