Affect Regulation Capabilities in Hypermobility Ehlers Danlos Syndrome: Exploring the Associations with Pain Perception and Psychophysical Health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Hypermobility Ehlers–Danlos syndrome (hEDS) is a clinical condition characterized by hypermobility and tissue fragility and is associated with chronic pain. The present study aimed to investigate the associations between affect regulation, pain perception, and psychophysical dimensions as well as alexithymic characteristics in the pathological range. Methods: Twenty-five hEDS patients completed a socio-anamnestic questionnaire as well as the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), the 36-Item Short Form Survey (psychophysical health), the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS), and the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (affect regulation). Results: Correlational analysis showed several negative significant associations between the SF-36, DERS, and TAS-20. The BPI showed few significant associations with both affect regulation measures. Moreover, a relationship between psychological dimensions and the time since diagnosis emerged. A total of 28% of participants reported TAS-20 scores in the clinical range and 36% reported scores in the borderline area. Discussion: Patients with hEDS seem to show high alexithymia levels; pain seems to interfere with the practical aspects of daily life and may reduce an individual’s awareness of their emotional capabilities. The perception of heightened pain has a stronger impact on emotional resources when it interferes with affective life than when it interferes with practical life. Finally, delayed diagnoses of hEDS entail psychological consequences such as alexithymia. Conclusions: The present findings highlight the importance of promoting affect regulation capabilities through the implementation of psychological intervention programs for patients suffering from this medical condition.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".