The association between dream activity and alexithymia during pregnancy: A cross‐sectional study in a sample of pregnant women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The gestational period is a sensitive time marked by significant changes that can affect women's sleep and dreaming processes, with an augmented frequency and recall of dreams suggesting that dreaming represents an adaptive mechanism of emotional regulation. This study investigates the relationship between pregnancy-related variables, alexithymia, and depressive symptoms in influencing dream characteristics in women during the first trimester of pregnancy. A total of 118 pregnant women were recruited at the Obstetric Outpatient Service of an Italian University Hospital and completed the Mannheim Dream Questionnaire, the Toronto Alexithymia Scale-20, and the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale. Regression analysis, t-test, and moderation analysis were conducted through Jamovi. Dream recall frequency was predicted by age, parity, and depressive symptoms. Nightmare frequency and lucid dream frequency were significantly predicted by depressive symptoms, while nightmare distress was predicted by an unplanned pregnancy. Alexithymia was linked to higher nightmare frequency and nightmare distress. Moderation analysis revealed that the presence of depressive symptoms predicted increased nightmare frequency only in women with higher levels of alexithymia. These findings highlight the role of emotional regulation in dreaming during pregnancy, particularly among women exhibiting alexithymic traits and depressive symptoms. Nightmare frequency may serve as an indicator of impaired emotional regulation, emphasising the need for targeted interventions to enhance emotional coping strategies in this population. Future research should examine the content of nightmares to further understand their implications for maternal mental health.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".