Evaluating the Components of Alexithymia in Patients With Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to evaluate the differences in alexithymia components between patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and normal individuals. Methods: In this ex-post facto study, 23 obsessive-compulsive outpatients’ selected by available sampling method and 22 personnel of the same hospitals (Taft Comprehensive Psychiatric Hospital, Imam Ali, Shahid Rahnemoon, and Baghayipoor Clinics) were selected as a control group in 2015 in Yazd, Iran. Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive and Toronto Alexithymia Scale-20 were used in this study. Results: Data were analyzed by multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). The results showed that patients with OCD were significantly different from the control group in the total alexithymia score (F=7.232, P=0.01). However, both groups had significant differences only in the subscale of difficulty in identifying feelings. Conclusion: It can be concluded that both groups had significant differences in the total alexithymia score and one of its subscales.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".