Relationship between alexithymia and event-related potential P300 in patients with somatoform disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To investigate the relationship between alexithymia and event-related potential P300 in patients with somatoform disorders.Methods Forty-two patients aged 18 to 65 years fulfilling ICD-10 diagnosis criteria for somatoform disorders were recruited as experiment group.Forty normal healthy persons were selected as control group.The Toronto alexthymia scale-20 (TAS-20) was employed to investigate the alexithymia of the subjects.P300 potentials was employed to investigate the cognitive ability of the subjects.A comparison was made between the patients and the healthy subjects.Results The latencies of N1,P2,N2 and P3 were significantly longer in patients with somatoform disorder than those in the normal controls (P ＜ 0.05 or 0.01),the amplitudes of N2 and P3 were significantly lower in the patients (P ＜ 0.05 or 0.01).The three factors scores and the total score of TAS-20 test in patients with somatoform disorder were significantly lower than those in the normal controls (P ＜ 0.05 or 0.01).There was significant correlation between the latency and the three factors scores and the total score of TAS-20 as well as between the amplitude of P300 and the three factors scores and the total score of TAS-20:the latencies of N1,P2,N2 and P3 recorded at Pz was positively correlated with the factors scores (r =0.32 ～ 0.48,P ＜ 0.05 or 0.01),and the amplitudes of N1,P2,N2 and P3 recorded at Pz was negatively correlated with theTAS-20 scores (r=-0.31 ～-0.51,P＜0.05 or0.01).Conclusions There existed significant correlation between the alexithymia and cognitive impairment in patients with somatoform disorders.Both alexithymia and event-related potential P300 can be used as a clinical evaluation index for patients with somatoform disorder. Key words: Somatoform disorders; Alexithymia; Cognitive function; Event-related potential P300; Toronto alexthymia scale-20
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".