MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4320165525 · doi:10.15406/jpcpy.2019.10.00650

Alexithymia among long-term drug users: a pilot study in Oporto

2019· article· en· W4320165525 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Teresa Souto, Hélder Alves, Ana Rita Conde, Luísa Pinto, Óscar Ribeiro

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Psychology & Clinical Psychiatry · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlexithymiaPsychiatryDysfunctional familyClinical psychologyToronto Alexithymia ScalePsychologyPublic healthPsychopathologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Increasing scientific evidence supports an association between alexithymia and psychoactive substance use. This study explores alexithymia´s expression in sample of long-term drug users, undergoing outpatient treatment in public health units in Oporto, Portugal, as well as its´ association with social demographic risk factors. Data was collected from a sample of 90 adults, participants, mainly men (n=90; 87%), considered to be old consumers (81% with a age>40 years), with a mean age of 46.1 years (SD=8.3; range=21–64).Two instruments were used: a sociodemographic questionnaire and the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20). More than 51.1% of the individuals were alexithymic, indicating a high prevalence of deficits in emotional awareness. The treatment period varied from 0 to 15 years, included a medication in 55% of cases, mostly methadone (83%). This profile illustrates the gradual aging of the long-term users of illicit drugs and alcohol with a clear diagnosis of an emotional disorder. Therefore, clinicians who develop treatment strategies may want to take into account the likelihood that many of their patients may be alexithymic; in being so, they should integrate specific psychotherapeutic techniques that promote both the identification and the differentiation in emotionally dysfunctional patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.367 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Psychology & Clinical PsychiatrySame topicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207