Alexithymia and personality characteristics of patients with somatoform disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To study the alexithymia and personality characteristics in patients with somatoform disorders. Methods Totally 60 patients with somatoform disorders and 60 normal controls were tested with Toronto alexithymia scale (TAS) and Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) . Results The patients with somatization disorders showed alexithymia and personality base.The total and factor scores of TAS of study group((86.20±11.15), (21.12±3.28), (26.08±3.86), (18.21±4.69), (23.44±5.60)) were higher than controlled group(( 65.00±10.12), (12.43±5.18), (15.64±5.57), (15.56±3.16), (18.71±4.30)) with significant difference(t=2.11-6.22, P=0.000-0.042). The MMPI scale scores of Hs (hypochondriasis), D (depression), Hy(hysteria) , Men-Nancy(Mf), paranoid(Pa), psychotic(Pt) were higher in patients with somatoform disorders((72.79±10.50), (68.46±13.63), (79.03±12.12), (51.72±7.74), (57.98±10.60), (54.98±8.83)) than those in normal controls((51.66±10.11), (47.96±9.42), (51.47±11.90), (43.66±8.77), (47.67±6.69 ), (47.48±8.67)) with significant difference( t=2.56-6.86, P=0.000-0.015), especially the scale scores of Hy and Hs were the most significantly among those (T>70). There was close correlation between personality traits and alexithymia. Factor I was positively related to depression, paranoid and psychotic, the relevancy was 0.454(P=0.023), 0.405(P=0.044), 0.477(P=0.016) respectively, besides Factor II was also positively related to depression, and the relevancy was 0.437(P=0.029). Conclusion Patients with somatoform disorders have the alexithymia and the personality characteristics, and there are close relationship between them. Key words: Somatoform disorders; Alexithymia; Personality characteristics
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) | 0.001 | 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".