The relationship between alexithymia, depression, anxiety, and stress in elderly with multiple chronic conditions in China: a network analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective This study aimed to construct a network structure to investigate the connections between alexithymia, depression, anxiety, and stress in Chinese older adults with multiple chronic conditions (MCC), identifying core and bridge symptoms, and comparing the network structure across different levels of alexithymia. Methods This study used a cross-sectional survey design and convenience sampling to recruit participants from six cities in Jiangsu Province. The study assessed the levels of alexithymia, depression, anxiety, and stress in older adults with MCC using the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) and the Depression Anxiety and Stress Scale-21 (DASS-21). Network analysis was performed using R language to identify core and bridge symptoms in the network and compare the network structure across different levels of alexithymia. Results A total of 662 participants were included in the analysis, including 395 men and 267 women. The mean age was 70.37 ± 6.92 years. The finding revealed that the “Difficulty Identifying Feelings” (DIF) node had the highest strength centrality (strength = 2.49) and predictability (rp = 0.76) in the network. The next highest strength centrality was observed for “Meaningless” (strength = 1.50), “Agitated” (strength = 1.47), “Scared” (strength = 1.42), and “No look forward” (strength = 0.75). They were identified as core symptoms. The bridge strength analysis identified “Panic,” “Scared,” “No wind down,” “No initiative,” and “No positive” as the bridge symptoms. There were notable differences in the overall network structure and specific connections between the groups with and without alexithymia ( p < 0.05). Conclusion “DIF” is a core node in the network of older adults with MCC, indicating its significance as a potential target for psychological interventions in clinical practice. Preventing and mitigating bridge symptoms such as “panic,” “Scared,” “No wind down,” “No initiative,” and “No positive” can effectively impede the spread of symptom activation, thereby interrupting or severing the connections among comorbidities in older adults. Additionally, compared to non-alexithymia individuals, the psychological issues of older adults with alexithymia require prioritized intervention from healthcare professionals.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".