Association of Symptoms of TMD and Orofacial Pain with Alexithymia: An Epidemiological Study of the Northern Finland 1966 Birth Cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alexithymia is a term denoting a deficit in the ability to differentiate emotional from physical states and to identify and describe one's feelings, as well as a preference for external oriented thinking. Alexithymia has been linked with various somatic and psychosomatic diseases, especially with chronic pain. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between alexithymia and symptoms of temporomandibular disorders (TMD) as well as oro-lingual and dental pain, in a large representative population sample of young adults. The study was a part of the 31-year follow-up study of the Northern Finland Birth Cohort originally consisting of 12058 live births in the year 1966. In 1997, 4893 subjects living in northern Finland or in the capital area, who participated in a field study of the project and later returned a postal questionnaire, made up the sample of this study. Information concerning symptoms of TMD and oro-lingual and dental pain was collected from the subjects. To assess alexithymia, the Toronto Alexithymia Scale-20 (TAS-20) was used. In addition, information about depression, marital status and self-rated health was collected. The proportion of alexithymics (TAS score over 60) was higher in subjects with the most orofacial symptoms than in asymptomatic subjects. In men, alexithymia associated significantly with facial pain, difficulties in mouth opening, oro-lingual pain and dental pain, and in women with pain on jaw movement and dental pain. After adjusting for depression, marital status, and self-rated health, a significant association remained between alexithymia and the symptoms mentioned, except for facial pain in men. It can be concluded that alexithymia is connected with orofacial symptoms. Clinicians treating these symptoms should be familiar with the concept of alexithymia.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".