The implication of alexithymia in personality disorders: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Alexithymia, characterized by difficulty identifying and expressing emotions, is often associated with various psychiatric disorders, including personality disorders (PDs). This study aimed to explore the relationship between alexithymia and PD, focusing on their common origins and implications for treatment. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines using databases such as MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, and Web of Science. The inclusion criteria were studies assessing adults with DSM-5-diagnosed personality disorders using validated alexithymia scales. The Newcastle‒Ottawa Scale was used to assess the quality of the included studies. RESULTS: From an initial yield of 2434 citations, 20 peer-reviewed articles met the inclusion criteria. The findings indicate a significant association between alexithymia and personality disorders, particularly within Clusters B and C. Patients with these disorders exhibited higher levels of alexithymia, which correlated with increased emotional dysregulation and interpersonal difficulties. The review also highlighted the comorbidity burden of conditions such as psychosomatic disorders, eating disorders, depression, anxiety, suicidal behavior, and substance use disorders. CONCLUSIONS: These findings underscore the need for integrating alexithymia-focused assessments into clinical practice to enhance therapeutic approaches, allowing for more personalized and effective interventions. Addressing the emotional processing challenges in patients with personality disorders could significantly improve patient outcomes. Future research should prioritize establishing clinical guidelines and conducting longitudinal studies to explore the relationship between alexithymia and specific personality disorder subtypes, ensuring the practical translation of these findings into clinical practice.
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 | 0.010 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".