Alexithymia and psychopathology in patients with acute myocardial infarction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives The purpose of this study was to investigate alexithymia in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients and its relationship with associated anxious-depressive co-morbidity.Methods We studied 71 participants: 30 consecutive patients with cardiac biomarkers and electrocardiographic criteria for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in a coronary care unit, with a mean age of 65.23 ± 11.95 years (80% male) and a control group of 41 healthy subjects with a mean age of 62.85 ± 7.83 (46% male). We used the Identification Form (sociodemographic data) and clinical diagnostic, the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20), the Symptom Check List – 90 Revised (SCL-90R) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS).Results Results show that patients with acute myocardial infarction had alexithymia scores significantly higher (P = 0.000) than the control group (60.0 ± 12.8 vs 49.9 ± 8.91) and also higher scores in psychopathological traits screened by the SCL-90R, namely high levels of somatization and depression. We also observed a positive correlation between psychopathological symptoms and alexithymia. A significant prevalence of alexithymia was found in patients with AMI suggesting that psychopathological symptoms have a significant relation with alexithymia.Conclusions In this clinical setting the deficit of emotion expression points to the need of psychotherapeutic intervention in patients after an AMI event occurs, to improve prognosis and well-being.
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) | 0.000 | 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".