Resilience and Attachment in Patients with Major Depressive Disorder and Bipolar Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Resilience represents one of the fundamental elements of attachment and has often been investigated in mood disorders. This study aims to investigate possible correlations between attachment and resilience in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) and bipolar disorder (BD). METHODS: 106 patients (51 MDD, 55 BD) and 60 healthy controls (HCs) were administered the 21-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D-21), the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A), the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS), the Snaith-Hamilton Pleasure Scale (SHAPS), the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale-11 (BIS-11), the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS), the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC), and Experiences in Close Relationship (ECR). RESULTS: < 0.01). A lower proportion of secure attachment was found among patients with MDD (27.4%) and BD (18.2%) compared to HCs (90%). In both clinical groups, fearful attachment prevailed (39.2% patients with MDD; 60% BD). CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight the central role played by early life experiences and attachment in participants with mood disorders. Our study confirms the data from previous research showing a significant positive correlation between the quality of attachment and the development of resilience capacity, and supports the hypothesis that attachment constitutes a fundamental aspect of resilience capacity.
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 | 0.001 | 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".