A Comparison of Alexithymia in Individuals with Suicidal Ideation, Attempted Suicide, and Non-Suicidal Self-Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Aims: Alexithymia is a concept characterized by the impairment of an individual’s awareness of his feelings and ability to clearly identify and describe them. This study investigated whether alexithymia levels would differ in three different groups consisting of participants exhibiting suicidal ideation, attempted suicide, and non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI). Methods: Seventy-five cases presenting to the psychiatry clinic and emergency department due to suicidal ideation, attempted suicide, or non-suicidal self-injury and 25 healthy controls were included in the study. The Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) and Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) were applied to all participants. The individuals taking part were assigned into three different groups for comparisons, suicidal ideation, attempted suicide, and NSSI. Results: TAS-20 scores (55.88±13.23) and HDRS scores (21.89±9.14) were higher in the case groups than in the healthy controls (38.44±11.72 and 1.96±2.51, respectively) (p<0.001). Significantly higher TAS-20 scores were determined in the group with NSSI than in the attempted suicide group. Mean scores for the TAS subscales TAS-A (difficulty identifying feelings) and TAS-B (difficulty describing feelings) were significantly higher in the NSSI group than in the attempted suicide group. Positive correlation was detected between severity of depression and alexithymia levels, TAS-20 scores, TAS-A scores, TAS-B scores, and TAS-C (externally oriented thinking) scores. Conclusion: The data from this study indicate that alexithymia levels in NSSI are higher than in individuals with attempted suicide and suicidal ideation. This finding reveals the importance of also examining individuals with NSSI in terms of alexithymia.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".