Investigating the Relationship Between Hopelessness, Alexithymia, Mind Wandering, Rumination, and Clinical Features in Patients with Bipolar Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: The understanding of the mechanisms involved in the etiopathogenesis and maintenance of Bipolar Disorder (BD) should be a priority to identify potential early clinical markers that could help in improving treatment strategies and prevention. The aim of this study was to investigate the potential correlation between hopelessness, alexithymia, mind wandering, and rumination in patients with a primary diagnosis of BD, evaluating whether these psychopathological aspects could negatively affect bipolar illness. METHODS: A semi-structured interview was used to collect sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. Several psychometric tools were administered: the Beck Hopelessness Scale; Toronto Alexithymia Scale; Rumination Response Scale; Mind Wandering Questionnaire; Mind Wandering: Deliberate; Mind Wandering: Spontaneous; and the Daydreaming Frequency Scale. RESULTS: Patients with high levels of hopelessness have a greater number of psychiatric and medical comorbidities and are more frequently on polypharmacotherapy. Additionally, patients with high levels of hopelessness show a greater likelihood of having attempted suicide during their lifetime. The presence of alexithymia is associated with longer hospitalization and psychiatric comorbidities. Higher levels of rumination correlate with a greater number of psychiatric and medical comorbidities, and with the presence of residual symptoms. Mind wandering is associated with the presence of medical comorbidities and residual symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Hopelessness, alexithymia, mind wandering, and rumination should be identified as important proxies of impaired subjective well-being that should be carefully monitored because they could further worsen the clinical course of BD and suicidal risk in this vulnerable population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".