Teoria da mente, alexitimia e empatia no Transtorno de Conduta e no Transtorno do Espectro Autista
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study examined three groups (Autism Spectrum Disorder, Conduct Disorder, and Control) with respect to variables: age, gender, socioeconomic profile, empathy, Theory of Mind, and alexithymia, aiming to investigate the relationship between empathy, Theory of Mind, and alexithymia in adolescents with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), Conduct Disorder (CD), and a control group.Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is a neurodevelopmental alteration characterized by difficulties in interpersonal interaction, rigidity in routines, and social impairment.Conduct Disorder (CD) is an externalizing pathology involving rule-breaking and limits violations causing harm to oneself and/or others.It can be subdivided according to the specifier "prosocial emotions," whether these are present or limited.Sixty adolescents aged between 12 and 17 years and 11 months were assessed and divided into groups as follows: 20 adolescents in the Control group, 21 in the ASD group, and 19 in the CD group.The sample underwent diagnostic validation through interviews using DSM-5 criteria and the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (M.I.N.I.), with the intention of selecting patients without comorbidities.The Autistic Traits Assessment (ATA) scale was used for autism symptom screening.To avoid bias from patients with intellectual disabilities, the Vineland-3 instrument was applied to assess adaptive behavior.Socioeconomic status was determined using the Pelotas scale.The following instruments were used to evaluate the studied concepts: Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS) for alexithymia assessment; EEMPA-IJ (EEMPA-IJ) to quantify empathy; and Wellman and Liu's Theory of Mind Task Scale (Adapted by Panciera) to assess metarepresentation ability.Descriptive analysis with parameters as sample size and standard deviation was employed, along with statistical inference using Fisher's Exact Test.Numeric variables were assessed for normality (p > 0.05), and if not normal, the Kruskal-Wallis test was applied.With up to five categorical categories, differences were analyzed using Wilcoxon Tests with Holm correction, using R software.The Conduct Disorder group showed higher scores in empathy, especially in emotional involvement.In Theory of Mind, the CD group did not differ from the Control group, but both surpassed the ASD group.CD individuals with pro-social emotions tend to have higher scores in empathy and alexithymia.It was observed that ASD is associated with deficits in Theory of Mind, while CD does not demonstrate alterations in this aspect.The CD group exhibits higher levels of alexithymia compared to the ASD and control groups.Regarding empathy, the results reveal an unexpected pattern, indicating that the CD group has higher empathy than expected based on existing literature.However, the study's methodology, based on self-report, raises questions about the validity of the results, suggesting the possibility of masked responses.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".