Alexithymia and psychopathological dimensions in First-Episode Psychosis: Comparative patterns in natural cannabis versus synthetic cannabinoid users
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: This study aimed to investigate the differences in psychotic symptomatology, dissociative symptoms, alexithymia, and aberrant salience among three groups: non-cannabis users (NU), natural cannabis users (NC), and synthetic cannabinoid users (SCs). The study also explored the patterns of alexithymia and its associations with other psychopathological dimensions in these populations. METHODS: A total of 108 participants experiencing First Episode Psychosis (FEP) were recruited during psychiatric crisis presentations to emergency rooms in Italy and categorized into three groups (NU, NC, SCs; n = 36 each). Participants were initially assessed 48-72 h after inpatient admission following clinical stabilization. Psychopathological assessments were conducted using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), Dissociative Experiences Scale (DES-II), Aberrant Salience Inventory (ASI), and Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20). Evaluations occurred at baseline (T0), three months (T1), and six months (T2) post-admission. Statistical analyses included ANOVA and repeated-measures ANOVA comparisons across time points. RESULTS: SC users exhibited significantly higher positive psychotic symptoms, persistent aberrant salience, and limited recovery of alexithymia compared to NC users and non-users. Dissociative symptoms were more prominent in both NC and SCs users, with SCs users showing minimal improvement over time. Negative symptoms were higher in non-users but showed progressive reduction across all groups. Significant correlations were observed between alexithymia and specific aberrant salience subscales, particularly Feelings of Increased Significance and Sense Sharpening. CONCLUSIONS: Synthetic cannabinoids are associated with more severe and persistent psychotic symptoms and emotional dysregulation compared to natural cannabis. Alexithymia and dissociation showed distinct patterns across user groups, with different trajectories of change over the six-month observation period. These findings underscore the need for targeted interventions addressing emotional regulation and salience processing in cannabis-related psychosis.
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 | 0.000 | 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".