Alexithymia in Patients With Substance Use Disorders and Its Relationship With Psychiatric Comorbidities and Health-Related Quality of Life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Alexithymia frequently correlates with several psychiatric disorders, including substance use disorder (SUD). However, most studies reporting the associations between alexithymia and psychiatric disorders have been performed in populations without SUD. This research, therefore, evaluates alexithymia in Spanish patients with SUD and the relationship among alexithymia, psychiatric comorbidities, psychological symptoms/traits, SUD variables, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Methodology: A cross-sectional study was conducted with 126 Spanish outpatients with SUD (75.4% males; mean age 43.72 ± 14.61 years), correlating their alexithymia levels (using the Toronto Alexithymia Scale 20 [TAS-20]) to their psychiatric comorbidities, psychological symptoms/traits, SUD variables, and HRQoL. Results: Alexithymia was significantly higher in patients who had cannabis use disorder. Higher alexithymia scores were also related to higher levels of depression, anxiety, impulsivity, and lower HRQoL. After multivariate analysis, trait anxiety, impulsivity, and the physical component summary of the HRQoL were found to be independently related to alexithymia. Conclusions: SUD patients with higher alexithymia levels have more frequently psychiatric comorbidities, present specific psychological features, and have worse HRQoL. Hence, it is important to evaluate these factors and offer more accurate psychotherapeutic approaches for this patient population.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".