Alexithymia and body image in adult outpatients with binge eating disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The current study elucidates the relations between alexithymia and body image in patients with binge eating disorder (BED). METHOD: One hundred one patients with BED were evaluated. Alexithymia was measured with the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20). The severity of BED was measured with the Binge Eating Scale (BES). Body concerns were assessed with the Body Shape Questionnaire-Short Version (BSQ-S), the Body Uneasiness Test (BUT), and the Body Attitude Test (BAT). Additional measures were the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES) and the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI). RESULTS: The prevalence of alexithymia in our sample was 39.6% (n = 40) and individuals with alexithymia showed higher scores on all rating scales. Higher body dissatisfaction, lower self-esteem, depressive symptoms, and the Difficulty in Identifying Feelings/Difficulty in Describing Feelings subscales of the TAS-20 were predictors of the severity of BED in the linear regression analysis. CONCLUSION: Alexithymia was associated with more severe BED. Individuals with alexithymia and BED exhibited significantly poorer appearance evaluation and body satisfaction as well as higher depressive symptoms than individuals without 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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".