Interoceptive Sensibility, Alexithymia, and Emotion Regulation in Individuals Suffering from Fibromyalgia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: People suffering from fibromyalgia syndrome report various difficulties in emotional processing, possibly resulting from changes in bodily perception (interoception). In our study, we investigated the relationships between interoceptive sensibility (IS) and two disease-relevant emotional components (alexithymia and emotion regulation) in fibromyalgia sufferers compared to healthy individuals. METHODS: Fifty-five fibromyalgia sufferers and 55 healthy individuals, matched with regard to age and gender, participated in our cross-sectional study. All participants completed the following self-report measures: the Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness, the Toronto Alexithymia Scale, and the Emotion Regulation Skills Questionnaire. Depression and anxiety scores served as confounding variables. RESULTS: Fibromyalgia sufferers reported a stronger tendency to note as well as to avoid (unpleasant) body sensations. IS and psychopathology each explained about thirty percent of the variance in emotion regulation in fibromyalgia sufferers. Alexithymia was related to IS and emotion regulation in controls but not in fibromyalgia sufferers. CONCLUSION: Disturbances in interoception could be seen as the starting point of emotional difficulties in people with fibromyalgia. Following the fear-avoidance-model, experiential avoidance may restrict patients' ability to adaptively regulate emotional states, possibly initiating a vicious cycle of psychological distress and pain.
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) | 0.002 | 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".