Mentalizing self and others: A controlled study investigating the relationship between alexithymia and theory of mind in major depressive disorder
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Theory of mind (ToM) and alexithymia have been reported to relate with depression in recent studies. However, data regarding the role of alexithymia and ToM in depression remain uncertain. AIM: The aim of the current study was to determine the levels of alexithymia and ToM abilities as well as their relationship with each other and clinical features in major depressive disorder (MDD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients diagnosed with MDD and healthy controls were undergone sociodemographic data, Beck Depression Inventory, Beck Anxiety Inventory, Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20), and reading the mind in the eyes test (RMET) to determine the depression, anxiety, alexithymia, and ToM abilities. RESULTS: = 0.02) in depressed group. No correlation was found between depression, anxiety levels, and RMET accuracy scores. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest alexithymia and impaired ToM abilities might be prominent but prone to be distinct clinical constructs in MDD patients.
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.
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 it