The role of psychiatric symptoms, alexithymia, and maladaptive defenses in patients with functional dyspepsia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Functional dyspepsia (FD) is a condition commonly seen in gastroenterological practice. The pathophysiology of FD is likely to be multi-factorial and remains incompletely understood. Although evidence for a psychological etiology is growing, few researches have investigated the role of psychological factors in FD disease. The aim of the study was to assess the role of alexithymia, psychiatric symptoms, and defense mechanism in patients with FD. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a case-control study, 60 consecutive with established FD referred to gastroenterology and 60 healthy people matched regarding demographic variables were selected. The subjects filled out three questionnaires; Symptom Checklist-90-Revised 40-item Defense Style and 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Student's t-test and multivariate analysis variance model were used to compare the two groups. RESULTS: Significantly higher scores were found in patients with dyspepsia when compared with controls for most psychiatric symptoms (depression P<0.001, anxiety P<0.001, obsessive-compulsion P<0.001, interpersonal sensitivity P<0.001, psychoticism P<0.001, hostility P<0.001, and total score of psychiatric symptoms P<0.001). Alexithymia symptoms (both (difficulty in identifying feelings and difficulty in describing feelings) was higher in FD patients than healthy individuals (P<0.001). Also, the use of maladaptive defense mechanisms (both neurotic and immature) in FD patients significantly was higher than healthy individuals (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Psychiatric symptoms, alexithymia, and maladaptive defense play significant role in the emergence of FD symptoms. This study proposes that FD patients should be evaluated and treated by departments of gastroenterology and psychiatry.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".