Alexithymia is associated with insomnia in Chinese patients with schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Sleep disorders are prevalent among patients with schizophrenia and are associated with several negative consequences. Although, researchers have recently suggested that sleep disorders have a close correlation with alexithymia, and schizophrenia also has a strong correlation with alexithymia, there have been few studies on the relationships between schizophrenia, sleep disorders and alexithymia. Therefore, this study aimed to explore the relationships between psychiatric symptoms, alexithymia and sleep problems in patients with schizophrenia so as to provide a reference for the clinical treatment of this comorbidity. Methods In total, 977 patients with schizophrenia were recruited for this study. The Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) was used to assess sleep disorders, and the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) and Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS) were used to evaluate clinical symptoms, cognitive functions and the ability to express emotion, respectively. Results The results indicated that the PANSS subscales (G-subscore) and TAS group were risk factors for insomnia in schizophrenia patients (all p < 0.05). The mediation model showed the standardized path coefficients from schizophrenia to alexithymia ( β = 0.104, p < 0.001) and from alexithymia to insomnia ( β = 0.038, p < 0.001) were statistically significant. Conclusion The results of this study indicated that alexithymia is associated with sleep disturbance in patients with schizophrenia. These findings may provide a new avenue for the treatment of schizophrenia patients with sleep disorders.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".