Alexithymia in Women with Deep Endometriosis? A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives The aim of the study was to evaluate the presence of alexithymia in a group of patients with endometriosis and chronic pelvic pain, and compare the results obtained, with those for a group of healthy controls. Methods Forty-one patients with pain and surgical diagnosis of deep endometriosis and 40 healthy controls were recruited for the study. All subjects were assessed using the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20). Moreover, the intensity of chronic pelvic pain and dysmenorrhea in patients was evaluated using a modified version of the Biberoglu-Behrman pain scale. In addition, the patients' state of general health was investigated with the SF-36. Results A positive score for alexithymia was achieved in 14.6% (n = 6) of patients with endometriosis, while the condition was absent in the control group. Alexithymia was indeterminate in 29.3% (n = 12) and 12.5% (n = 5) of patients and controls, respectively, and absent in 56.1% (n = 22) and 87.5% (n = 35). Intergroup differences were significant for 3 factors evaluated by the TAS-20. Discussion The present study underlined how women with endometriosis are significantly more alexithymic compared with controls.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".