MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Characteristics of alexithymia and social support defects in patients with somatoform disorders

2019· article· en· W3029353117 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ningbo Yang, Jie Li, Guoxiu Zhang, Songnian Liu, Guangxian Wu, Aiqin Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueChin J Psychiatry · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlexithymiaToronto Alexithymia ScaleSocial supportPatient Health QuestionnaireRating scalePsychologyMedicineClinical psychologyInternal medicinePsychiatryAnxietyDevelopmental psychologyDepressive symptomsPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective To investigate the affective and somatic symptoms of patients with somatoform disorders (SFD) and their related factors to their social support and alexithymia. Methods Seventy-one patients with SFD and 75 healthy controls (HC) were recruited. Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), General Anxiety Scale (GAD-7), Patient Health Questionnaire 15-Item Somatic Symptom Severity Scale (PHQ-15), Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) and Social Support Rating Scale (SSRS) were evaluated for all subjects. Results (1) The total scores of all the PHQ-9, GAD-7 and PHQ-15 in patients group were significantly higher than that in HC (t=46.67, 41.24, 49.64, P<0.01). (2) Except the objective social support, subject social support and social support utilization in SFD group were lower than those in HC (36.97±6.74 vs. 40.54±5.47, 19.34±3.17 vs. 23.53±3.62, 6.41±3.13 vs. 8.36±2.43; t=7.46, 4.28, 3.52; P<0.01). There were significant differences in TAS-20 between the two groups (t=8.08, 8.52, 5.54, 7.35, P<0.01). (3) By the correlation analysis in patient group, the sum score of the affective and somatic symptom (PHQ-9+GAD-7+PHQ-15) was significantly correlated to the subjective social support, social support utilization, social support total score, TAS-Ⅰ, TAS-Ⅱ, TAS-Ⅲ and TAS-20 total score (r=-0.372, -0.359, -0.426, 0.368, 0.327, 0.306, 0.364, P<0.01). And the numbers of non-mental health clinic visits (χ1), social support utilization (χ2), adverse reactions(χ3), TAS-Ⅱ (χ4) and TAS-Ⅰ (χ5) contributed to the multiple regression equation for the sum of PHQ-9, GAD-7 and PHQ-15 scores. Conclusion The alexithymia and incapability of perceiving and utilizing social support, numbers of visits in non-mental health clinic and the medication adverse reactions that subjectively perceived in the patients with SFD may be the key factors that could impact their affective and somatic symptoms. Key words: Anxiety; Depression; Somatoform disorders; Social support; 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.003
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.211 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChin J PsychiatrySame topicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207