Specific topics, specific symptoms: linking the content of recurrent involuntary memories to mental health using computational text analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Researchers debate whether recurrent involuntary autobiographical memories (IAMs; memories of one's personal past retrieved unintentionally and repetitively) are pathological or ordinary. While some argue that these memories contribute to clinical disorders, recurrent IAMs are also common in everyday life. Here, we examined how the content of recurrent IAMs might distinguish between those that are maladaptive (related to worse mental health) versus benign (unrelated to mental health). Over two years, 6187 undergraduates completed online surveys about recurrent IAMs; those who experienced recurrent IAMs within the past year were asked to describe their memories, resulting in 3624 text descriptions. Using a previously validated computational approach (structural topic modeling), we identified coherent topics (e.g., "Conversations", "Experiences with family members") in recurrent IAMs. Specific topics (e.g., "Negative past relationships", "Abuse and trauma") were uniquely related to symptoms of mental health disorders (e.g., depression, PTSD), above and beyond the self-reported valence of these memories. Importantly, we also found that content in recurrent IAMs was distinct across symptom types (e.g., "Communication and miscommunication" was related to social anxiety, but not symptoms of other disorders), suggesting that while negative recurrent IAMs are transdiagnostic, their content remains unique across different types of mental health concerns. Our work shows that topics in recurrent IAMs-and their links to mental health-are identifiable, distinguishable, and quantifiable.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".