The connection between alexithymia and attachment style in the bipolar pathology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Difficulties in identifying and expressing one’s emotions, known as alexithymia, may influence the development of bipolar disorder. Attachment style reflects how a person forms and maintains interpersonal relationships Objectives The aim of the study is to analyze the connection between alexithymia, attachment style and the clinical evolution of bipolar disorder. Methods The study was conducted on a sample of 31 subjects diagnosed with bipolar affective disorder, with a longitudinal evolution of at least 10 years. Sociodemographic parameters, alexithymia (Toronto Alexithymia Scale), and attachment style (Adult Attachment Scale) were evaluated. Data were collected and analyzed to identify potential correlations between levels of alexithymia and attachment styles, as well as their impact on the number of illness episodes. Results There is no correlation between alexithymia and attachment style (r = -0.044, p > 0.05). A strong and significant correlation was observed between the level of alexithymia and the number of bipolar episodes (r= 0.907, p < 0.05). Attachment style did not have a significant influence on the course of illness. The educational level correlated inversely with alexithymia, but without being statistically significant (r=- 0.344, p > 0.05). Conclusions Alexithymia has an important role in the evolution of bipolar disorder, as it appears to be associated with an increased frequency in the number of illness episodes. The development of psychotherapy interventions to reduce alexithymia are essential to ensure a satisfactory quality of life for patients. Disclosure of Interest None Declared
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".