The role of alexithymia on psychological resilience in women with breast cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Studies indicated that breast cancer cause alexithymia that having adverse effect on resilience. Recognizing and expressing emotions are very crucial to cope with the difficulties. Objectives This study aimed to examine the role of alexithymia on psychological resilience and related variables in women with breast cancer. Methods In this descriptive study, 70 women with breast cancer who apply to a medical oncology outpatient between June 2019-February 2020 were included. 9-questions questionnaire was used to determine the sociodemographic and cancer related characteristics of the participants. The Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS), Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20), Psychological Resilience Scale (PRS) were used to determine perceived social support, alexithymia and psychological resilience levels. Descriptive statistics, correlations, ANOVA and t-test were used for data analysis. Results The MSPSS (20.07 ± 10.54) and TAS-20 were found low (47.71 ± 11.96) and PRS were high (132.24 ± 16.47). A negative, weak, significant relationship was found between the alexithymia (r=-0.370, p=0.02) and perceived social support (r=-0.496, p=0.01) with psychological resilience. There was no significant difference between the psychological resilience and age, education level, marital status, having children, profession, employment status, duration of illness, type of treatment, having metastases, and becoming caregiver (p> 0.05). Conclusions The psychological resilience of women with breast cancer was negatively related to their alexithymia and perceived social support levels. It indicates that being able to recognize the emotions and having social support systems would positively affect the recovery process. Disclosure No significant relationships.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".