Alexithymia and Suicide Ideation in a Sample of Patients with Binge Eating Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The goal of this cross-sectional study was to evaluate the relationships between alexithymia and suicide ideation in 80 adult outpatients with a DSM-IV diagnosis of binge eating disorder (BED). METHODS: Alexithymia was measured with the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20); suicide ideation was assessed with the Scale of Suicide Ideation (SSI); severity of BED was assessed with the Binge Eating Scale (BES); and depressive and anxiety symptoms were evaluated, respectively, with the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (Ham-A). RESULTS: Prevalence of current suicide ideation was 27.5% (n = 22) in this sample and 10 subjects (12.5%) had attempted suicide at some time in their lives. Subjects with alexithymia had more significant suicide ideation, a higher prevalence of current suicide ideation, and more previous suicide attempts than those without alexithymia. In a linear regression model, higher MADRS scores and higher scores on the Difficulty in Identifying Feelings/Difficulty in Describing Feelings dimensions of the TAS-20 were associated with increased suicide ideation. DISCUSSION: Suicidal behavior is no less common in BED than in other eating disorders. Individuals with BED may show increased suicide ideation, especially in the presence of alexithymia and depressive symptoms, even if these symptoms are subclinical. The authors also discuss limitations of this study and future research needs.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".