MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400282701 · doi:10.3390/psychiatryint5030023

Revealing the Mechanisms That Contribute to Anger Expression Proneness in Patients with Brain Damage: The Importance of Executive Dysfunctions and Alexithymia

2024· article· en· W4400282701 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ángel Romero‐Martínez, Carolina Sarrate‐Costa, Gabriel García-Pardo Sánchez-Barba, Lorena Vallejo Ortega, Sara López-Santamaría, Sara Burgos-López, Jessica García‐González, Luis Moya‐Albiol

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychiatry International · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlexithymiaAngerRuminationPsychologyClinical psychologyIrritabilityAggressionDysfunctional familyFeelingExecutive dysfunctionToronto Alexithymia ScaleDevelopmental psychologyAnxietyPsychiatryNeuropsychologyCognitionSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.204

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychiatry InternationalSame topicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207