Dealing with emotions when the ability to cry is hampered: emotion processing and regulation in patients with primary Sjogren's syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The hampered ability to cry in patients with Sjogren's syndrome may affect their ways of dealing with emotions. The aim of this study was to examine differences in emotion processing and regulation between people with and without Sjogren's syndrome and correlations of emotion processing and regulation with mental well-being. METHODS: In 300 patients with primary Sjogren's syndrome and 100 demographically matched control participants (mean age 56.8 years, 93% female), emotion processing (affect intensity and alexithymia, i.e. difficulty identifying and describing feelings), emotion regulation (cognitive reappraisal, suppression and expression of emotions), and mental well-being were assessed. RESULTS: Criteria for clinical alexithymia applied to 22% of the patients and 12% of the control participants; patients had significantly more difficulty identifying feelings than control participants. No other significant differences in emotion processing and emotion regulation were found. In patients, the emotion processing styles affect intensity and alexithymia (0.32<r<0.51) and the emotion regulation strategy suppression of emotions (r=0.13) significantly correlated with worse mental well-being, which is about similar to control participants. CONCLUSIONS: Processing and regulating emotions in patients with Sjogren's syndrome does not deviate from normal with one exception: a relatively large number of patients is alexithymic. As in the general population, in patients with Sjogren's syndrome the more intense and deficient processing and regulation of emotions is associated with worse mental well-being. This study indicates that, except for selected patients, processing and regulation of emotions is not a key therapeutic issue for the majority of patients with Sjogren's syndrome.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".