Association between alexithymia and substance use: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alexithymia has been associated with substance use, but the magnitude of the association has not been evaluated and sub-group differences, if any, are unknown. The aim of this meta-analysis is to systematically review the association between alexithymia and substance use (alcohol or illicit drugs). We identified studies through a systematic review of PubMed and Web of Science and obtained a total of 52 publications using the Toronto Alexithymia Scale-20 scale. Random effects meta-analysis was used to evaluate the overall and sub-group associations. Of the studies, 50 were cross-sectional and two longitudinal. Alexithymia was associated with any substance use (Cohen's d = 0.62, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49-0.76), with little difference between estimates for use of alcohol or illicit drugs. A stronger association was observed for the alexithymia dimension "Difficulty in Identifying Feelings" (d = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.47-0.81) and "Difficulty in Describing Feelings" (d = 0.44, 95% CI = 0.32-0.55) than for "Externally Oriented Thinking" (d = 0.19, 95% CI = 0.09-0.28). The association was stronger in studies with clinical patient populations (d = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.62-1.05) than in those investigating general or student populations, and in studies with a majority of male rather than female participants. These findings suggest a strong overall association between alexithymia and substance use and a very strong association among clinical patient populations. The association may be stronger with the emotion-related dimensions than with the cognition-related dimension of alexithymia. As nearly all the studies were cross-sectional, more longitudinal studies are needed.
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 | 0.008 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.026 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".