Relationship between the levels of serum cortisol and alexithymia in depressive patients with somatic symptoms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To investigate the correlation between the level of serum cortisol and alexithymia in depressive patients with somatic symptoms. Methods The morning level of serum cortisol was measured with radioimmunoassay in 30 depressive patients with somatic symptoms (somatization group) and 30 depressive patients without somatic symptoms (non-somatization group). The severity of alexithymia was evaluated with Toronto alexithymia Scale(TAS-20). Results (1) The level of serum cortisol in somatization group was significantly higher than that in non-somatization group((533.88±144.10) μmol/L vs (458.27±82.87) μmol/L, P<0.01). (2) The total TAS score and the factor score of Difficulty in identifying feelings and Difficulty in describing feelings in somatization group were obviously higher than those in non-somatization group, respectively((67.13±6.96) vs (62.03±7.14), (24.50±3.78) vs (21.63±3.63), (15.30±2.69) vs (13.57±2.03), all P<0.01). (3) The level of serum cortisol in somatization group was positively correlated with the total score of alexithymia (r=0.596, P<0.01) and the factor score ofDifficulty in identifying feelings,Difficulty in describing feelings,externally oriented thinking, respectively (r=0.391, 0.435, 0.452, all P<0.05). (4) The level of serum cortisol in non-somatization group was positively related to the total TAS score (r=0.418, P<0.05) and the factor score ofexternally oriented thinking(r=0.489, P<0.01). Conclusions Compared with depressive patients without somatic symptoms, depressive patients with somatic symptoms had more severe alexithymia, especially in Difficulty in identifying feelings and Difficulty in describing feelings. The severity of alexithymia was positively correlated with the level of serum cortisol. Key words: Depression; Somatic symptoms; Cortisol; 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 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".