Dental fear and alexithymia among adults in Finland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
population sample, controlling for age, gender, education and marital status as well as depressive and anxiety disorders. An additional aim was to evaluate whether gender modified this association. MATERIAL AND METHODS. The two-stage stratified cluster sample (n = 8028) represented the Finnish population aged 30 years and older. Participants (n = 5241) answered the question 'How afraid are you of visiting a dentist?' They also filled out the 20-Item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20), which included three sub-scales, i.e. difficulties in identifying feelings (DIF), difficulties in describing feelings (DDF) and externally oriented thinking (EOT). Anxiety and depressive disorders were assessed with a standardized structured psychiatric interview according to DSM-IV criteria. To evaluate the association between dental fear and alexithymia, multiple logistic regression analyses were performed, adjusting simultaneously for the effects of possible confounding variables. RESULTS. Gender modified the association between dental fear and alexithymia. Among women, those reporting higher scores for TAS-20, DIF and EOT sub-scale scores were more likely to have high dental fear than were those reporting lower scores. Among men no such association was observed. Those participants who reported high DDF sub-scale scores were more likely to have high dental fear than were those reporting lower scores. CONCLUSIONS. Alexithymics are more likely to have high dental fear than non-alexithymics are. The findings support the suggestion that some people with dental fear may have internal personality vulnerability to anxiety disorders.
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) | 0.001 | 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 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".