Transition From Perception Of Autonomic Functioning To Somatoform Disorders : The Role Of Alexithymia And Health Anxiety
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Perception of autonomic functioning, such as feeling of fast/loud heartbeat, sweatiness, bowel motility, is a part of normal interoceptive experience. However, the same features represent thecomplaints forming somatoform disorders. It is of practical importance to study the differences between these two phenomena.Objectives: To evaluate the factors contributing to increased autonomic perception and to formation of somatoform disorders.Methods: 58 volunteers aged 38u00b112 (7 male) were examined with the use of Screening for Somatoform Disorders 2 (SOMS-2), Autonomic Perception Scale (APS, a checklist for features of autonomicfunctioning perceived during the last week), Short Health Anxiety Inventory (SHAI), Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20), and Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness (MAIA). A linear regression was used to evaluate the role of alexithymia, health-related anxiety and interoceptive awareness both in autonomic perception (APS) and in somatoform disorders (SOMS-2)Results: Linear regression allowed prediction of the APS value on the base of model including TAS-20, SHAI and MAIA (R=0.75, p<0.001), and the major predictor was alexithymia (standardized coefficient0.7, p=0.001). Model with the same components allowed prediction of the SOMS-2 value (R=0.73, p=0.001), but, in contrary with the APC value, the major contributor was the health-related anxiety (standardized coefficient 0.6, p=0.001).Conclusions: Individuals with higher alexithymia are prone to increased perception of autonomic signs, which may be explained by inability to recognize the emotional content of arousal. However, alexithymia per se does not lead to formation of somatoform disorders u2014 the major pathogenetic factor is represented by health anxiety.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".