Alexithymia and Psychopathology in Patients with Psychiatric and Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Alexithymia and psychopathology may influence the way individuals experience psychological distress and somatic symptoms. This study evaluated patients referred to psychiatric and gastroenterologic outpatient settings in order to investigate the levels of alexithymia and psychopathology, and the possible role of alexithymia in symptom perception and health care utilization. The association between psychiatric disorders and functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGIDs) was also assessed. METHODS: Psychopathology (by the Revised 90-item Symptom Checklist), alexithymia (by the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale), and gastrointestinal symptoms (by the Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale) were evaluated in 52 psychiatric outpatients and 58 medical outpatients with FGIDs. Two comorbid subgroups of 25 psychiatric patients with FGIDs and 38 FGID patients with psychiatric disorders were formed and compared. RESULTS: Forty-eight percent of the psychiatric patients had associated FGIDs, and 65.5% of the FGID patients had associated psychiatric disorders. The FGID patients had significantly less psychopathology, but significantly higher alexithymia and more severe gastrointestinal symptoms, than the psychiatric patients. In the comparison of the two subgroups with comorbidity, FGID patients with psychiatric disorders were still more alexithymic and had less psychopathology than psychiatric patients with FGIDs, but gastrointestinal symptoms were not significantly different. CONCLUSION: Patients with 'functional' gastrointestinal symptoms attending a medical care service are likely to be highly alexithymic, whereas those attending a psychiatric care service are likely to show severe psychopathology. Alexithymia seems to influence the presentation of 'functional' somatic symptoms and the type of health care utilization.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".