Theory of mind in trichotillomania: A cross-sectional comparison with healthy controls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Theory of mind (ToM) is the ability to make correct inferences from one's own or another person's mental states, such as thoughts, beliefs, desires, and intentions. Although there are a limited number of studies in the literature examining the social cognitive functions of patients with trichotillomania (TTM), no studies have evaluated ToM. This study aimed to compare the ToM skills of patients with TTM and healthy controls. METHOD: The study included 40 patients who were diagnosed as having TTM according to DSM-5 criteria and 40 healthy controls matched for age, education, and sex. A Sociodemographic and Clinical Data Form, the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI), Massachusetts General Hospital Hairpulling Scale (MGH-HPS), Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20), Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test (RMET), and the Dokuz-Eylül Theory of Mind Scale (DEToMS) were administered to the participants. RESULTS: Patients with TTM performed statistically significantly worse than healthy controls in terms of ToM, metaphor concept, empathic understanding, and faux pas scores. No statistically significant difference was found between the groups in terms of first-degree false belief, second-degree false belief, and irony concept scores. Depression, anxiety, and alexithymia scores of patients with TTM were statistically significantly higher than the control group. No significant correlation was found between ToM tests and anxiety, depression, alexithymia, disease severity, and disease duration in the TTM group. CONCLUSION: Our findings show that there is an impairment in ToM skills in patients with TTM and that this impairment is independent of clinical features. Studies with larger samples are needed on this subject.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".