The effect of alexithymia on functioning and perceived social support after a manic episode
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effect of alexithymia on functioning and perceived social support after a manic episodeObjectives: The aim of this study was to examine the correlation of alexithymia, functioning, and perceived social support in patients after a manic episode.Methods: Sample selection was not carried out in this descriptive study, and 267 patients who met the inclusion criteria constituted the sample.Data collection was performed via face-to-face interviews using the Personal Information Form, Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20), Bipolar Disorder Functioning Questionnaire (BDFQ), and the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS).The data were analyzed using the SPSS program.Results: It was determined that 19.5% (n=52) of the patients included in the study were alexithymic.A significant negative correlation was identified between alexithymia and perceived social support (r=-0.313;p<0.05) and functioning (r=-0.467;p<0.05), and a significant positive correlation was found between functioning and perceived social support (r=0.504; p<0.05).According to linear regression analysis, the alexithymia scores of the participants explained 22% of the variance in their functioning scores (R²=0.218,F=73.797, p<0.001, 95% CI: 0.399-0.250),and alexithymia scores explained 10% of the variance in perceived social support scores (R²=0.098,F=28.880, p<0.001, 95% CI: 0.308-0.143).Conclusion: This study found that functioning and perceived social support decreased as alexithymia increased in post-manic patients.Functioning and perceived social support affect each other in the same direction.Interventions aimed at reducing alexithymia in patients after manic episodes may be useful in preventing episodes by maintaining functionality and increasing perceived social support.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".