P01-311 - Alexithymia, Hypochondriasis and Obsessive-compulsive Symptoms in Patients with Chronic Prostatitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective Chronic prostatitis has been long considered a psychosomatic illness, however the psychological profile of patients suffering from it, has not been fully elucidated yet. The present study aims to assess alexithymia, hypochondriasis and obsessive-compulsive symptoms in patients with chronic prostatitis. Methods Patients diagnosed with chronic prostatitis at a tertiary care ID clinic were evaluated for the presence of alexithymia, hypochondriasis and obsessive compulsive symptoms using respectively the following psychometric tools: Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS), Whiteley Index (WI) and Leyton Obsessional Inventory (LOI). Patients were categorized according to the NIH Consensus Classification System for Prostatitis Category and the NIH Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (CPSI) was calculated. Results 57 patients (median age 40 yrs old; IQR 32-51.5 yrs) have been evaluated so far. Median CPSI score was 18 (IQR: 13-24). Median TAS score was 44 (39-57), median LOI score was 13 (10-15) and median WI score was 28 (22-38). An abnormal LOI score indicative of obsessive-compulsive features was noted in 58% of patients and an abnormal WI score indicative of hypochondriacal beliefs in 45%. CPSI strongly correlated with TAS score (r=0.57, p=0.007). Conclusion High rates of alexithymia, obsessive compulsive symptoms and hypochondriasis are present in chronic prostatitis patients. Alexithymic features were strongly correlated with quality of life measures such as the CPSI. These findings necessitate further elucidation and suggest that patients with chronic prostatitis may need psychiatric counseling and therapy.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".