The relationship study on alexithymia and interoception in patents with panic disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To explore the characteristics of alexithymia and interoception in patients with panic disorder(PD) and its relationship. Methods Thirty-seven patients with PD and 45 healthy controls who met the diagnostic criteria of DSM-Ⅳ were selected.Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS) and state-trait anxiety inventory (STAI) were used to assess the characteristics of alexithymia and anxiety symptoms respectively.The heartbeat perception levels were tested by the Mental Tracking Paradigm. Results The detection rate of alexithymia in patients with panic disorder was 37.83%(14/37), but the rate in the normal control group was only 4.44%(2/45), and the difference was statistically significant (χ2=14.42, P<0.05). The total score of TAS (55.11±10.99), factor Ⅰ (20.62±6.78) and factor Ⅱ (14.68±3.70) in the PD group were higher than those in the control group (42.93±9.25, 12.82±4.99, 11.42±3.04; F=20.72, 31.08, 15.31, P<0.01). The levels of the heartbeat perception were higher in the PD group than that in the control group (0.75±0.15, 0.58±0.19; t=4.13, P<0.05). In PD group, the score of STAI were positively correlated with TAS total score and factor Ⅰ and Ⅱ scores(r=0.57, 0.61, 0.47; r=0.54, 0.62, 0.39, P<0.05). There was no significant correlation between the scores of STAI and the level of interoception.The mediating effect of interoception level on alexithymia and state anxiety was not significant while the mediating effect on alexithymia and trait anxiety was also not significant. Conclusions The alexithymia detection rate and interoception sensitivity in patients with panic disorder were higher than those of healthy people.There may be interaction between alexithymia and anxiety symptoms.Interoception may be a clinical feature of panic disorder. Key words: Panic disorder; Alexithymia; Interoception; Heartbeat perception
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".