Male Hysteria: Main Psychopathological Theories and Clinical Presentations (Narrative Literature Review)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Hysteria has been historically linked primarily to women; however, its importance in men has recently gained attention. This is why we found it interesting to study male hysteria. Therefore, understanding psychopathological theories offers a valuable framework for highlighting its clinical characteristics. Objectives Describe the main psychopathological theories of male hysteria and its key clinical specifications referring to the theories. Methods We conducted a narrative literature review of articles and thesis published between 2009 and 2022, using databases such as PubMed, Google Scholar, and HAS (Haute Autorité de Santé) with predefined keywords such as “men”, “hysteria”, “masculine” and “conversion”. This review culminated in a narrative synthesis that aims a cohesive discussion integrating key findings from the literature. Results The bibliography first distinguished between two pairs in order to define masculine hysteria: Anatomical (male/female) and psychological (feminine/masculine), highlighting that masculine hysteria can occur in both men and women. Therefore, a male may identify with either masculine hysteria or feminine hysteria, the latter of which can be related to male homosexuality. Research indicates that masculine hysteria is associated with theories of sexual identity conflict, which involve the repression of feminine traits and fears of castration. Additionally, cultural norms often restrict men’s emotional expression, favoring strength over vulnerability, along with personal, relational, and environmental influences. Clinical observations suggest that masculine hysteria typically presents with physical symptoms and dramatic expressions. The type and intensity of these symptoms may vary based on different early life experiences. Conclusions Referring to literature, the specific clinical signs leading to a diagnosis of men hysteria seem to be difficult to identify and not well developed. We also concluded that hysteria is too much related to lived gender rather than anatomical gender. 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".