MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064266750 · doi:10.1080/08964280109595778

Alexithymia and Body Weight in Obese Patients

2001· article· en· W2064266750 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Giovanni Adami, Adelia Campostano, Giambattista Ravera, Mariantonia Leggieri, Nicola Scopinaro

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioral Medicine · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlexithymiaObesityWeight lossToronto Alexithymia ScalePersonalityPopulationBig Five personality traitsClinical psychologyMedicinePsychologyBody mass indexBody weightEmotional eatingPsychiatryInternal medicineEating behavior

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors evaluated severely obese patients to determine whether being far different in body shape from the accepted standard may cause obese people to develop alexithymic personality traits. They evaluated the food- and weight-related attitudes in obesity surgery patients and in long-term follow-up of those who had previously had biliopancreatic diversion (BPD) for obesity. One quarter of the obese patients had alexithymic characteristics without any modification following stable weight loss, a rate of alexithymia similar to that observed in the nonclinical population. Furthermore, the frequency of alexithymia and the patients' scores on the Toronto Alexithymia Scale were similar in obese and post-BPD individuals. The authors concluded that being obese by itself does not influence the presence of alexithymic personality traits. However, they suggest that the improvement in food-related and weight-related attitudes following stable weight loss may be different in alexithymic and in nonalexithymic obese patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.296 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBehavioral MedicineSame topicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207