Alexithymia and dissociation in personality disorders: a retrospective cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Patients with “personality disorder”, has history of traumatic life events and are predisposed to develop alexithymia and dissociation, considered as risk factor for severity. Objectives The aim of the research is to analyze alexithymia relating to dissociative symptoms, and investigate their associations, in 34 patients with personality disorder. Methods Outpatients with personality disorder relating to Mental Health Centre have been identified and tested with the Dissociative Experiences Scale, the Parma Scale for Personality Functioning and the Toronto Alexithymia Scale. Results There was no significant association between age of patients and presence of alexithymia (r=-0.16) and dissociation (r=-0.19); most patients with alexithymia and dissociation were female (67%; 0.67%). 71% of alexithymic subjects had attended lower secondary school, 50% upper secondary school and 43% had a university degree. Substance use is higher in alexithymic patients (73%). 69% of subjects who do not undergo any individual or group psychotherapy are alexithymic; for dissociative symptoms it is significant to undergo both psychotherapies. Alexithymia and dissociation are more frequent in histrionic personality disorder (80%; 60%) and borderline personality disorder (55%; 54%). There is a potential correlation between alexithymia and the presence of dissociative symptoms (r=0.64). Conclusions This study found that alexithymia and dissociative symptoms are frequent within personality disorders, particularly in histrionic and borderline personality disorder. We found that the two phenomena were associated. Furthermore we found alexithymia is more influenced by external factors than dissociative symptoms. 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".