A comparison of affective information processing in Noonan and Turner syndromes: Evidence of alexithymia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Noonan (NS) and Turner syndrome (TS) are associated with cognitive problems and difficulties in affective information processing. While both phenotypes share physical features, genetic etiology and neuropsychological phenotype differ significantly. The present study examines putative differences in affective information processing and social cognition of patients with NS and TS. Participants and Methods: Two groups of female patients (27 NS, 40 TS) and 40 female controls were matched on age and intelligence, and subsequently compared on (a) alexithymia, measured by the Bermond Vorst Alexithymia Questionnaire, (b) emotion recognition, evaluated by the Emotion Recognition Task (ERT), and (c) social cognition, assessed by the Scale of Interpersonal Behaviour as well as a social cognition factor (SCF) based on subtests of the WAIS-III. \nResults: Impaired affective information processing was present in the TS group (alexithymia: p-values<.001; ERT happiness: p<.01; SCF: p<.05) compared with the NS group, whereas patients with NS only had more difficulty in the recognition of angry facial expressions than controls (p=.01).\nConclusions: Impairments in affective information processing, in particular alexithymia, are more pronounced in patients with TS than in NS. Visuospatial difficulties, typically associated with TS, may explain the results found on the SCF. In NS, some indications were found for sex-specific patterns of alexithymia. Present findings of differential profiles in NS and TS suggest neuropsychological phenotyping to be helpful for the diagnosis of specific cognitive-affective deficits in genetic\nsyndromes, and for the development of personalised treatment.
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".