Revealing the Mechanisms That Contribute to Anger Expression Proneness in Patients with Brain Damage: The Importance of Executive Dysfunctions and Alexithymia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The ability of scientists and clinicians to detect the therapeutic needs of patients with brain damage has increased in recent years. In this sense, many studies have signaled that individuals tend to experience an increase in irritability after suffering brain damage, with some patients even showing sudden aggressive outbursts. This increase in anger expression in these patients could be explained by executive functioning alterations (or executive dysfunctions), given their role in goal-oriented behaviors, along with emotional dysregulations such as alexithymia (e.g., difficulties recognizing and verbalizing feelings) and anger rumination (e.g., tendency to recall thoughts regarding experiences of frustration or anger). Therefore, it is essential to understand the mechanisms that contribute to and/or facilitate anger expression in patients with brain damage. Methods: In this regard, the main objective of this study is to assess whether executive dysfunctions (assessed with the Frontal Systems Behavior Scale) would explain anger expression (measured with the Reactive and Proactive Aggression Questionnaire) in patients with brain damage (n = 23; mean age: 56.61 ± 10.68; 57% men) compared to controls (n = 24; mean age: 60.96 ± 9.25; 33% men), paying special attention to potential moderators of this association such as alexithymia (analyzed with the Toronto Alexithymia Scale-20) and anger rumination (assessed with the Anger Rumination Scale). Results: The results of the current investigation led us to conclude that anger expression in patients with brain damage was partly explained by executive dysfunction, especially in those patients who scored high in alexithymia. This model was not significant among controls. Conclusions: Thus, we highlight the importance of targeting certain psychological alterations, such as alexithymia, when implementing psychotherapeutic programs as an adjuvant to cognitive training focused on cognitive deficits (e.g., executive dysfunctions). This, in turn, would support the full recovery of individuals who have experienced brain damage.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".