Alexithymia in male infertility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The continuing confrontation with the thoughts and feelings surrounding an unfulfilled wish for a child makes coping very difficult. There is empirical evidence that, in medical illnesses associated with stress and loss of quality of life, patients react with alexithymia, which means a difficulty to communicate emotions. In this study we compared 84 infertile men with a group of 96 healthy men and 43 male psychosomatic outpatients concerning their ability to communicate feelings, measured by the Twenty-Item Toronto Alexithymia Scale and the amount of psychopathologically relevant symptoms, especially somatization, measured by the Symptom Checklist 90-R and a List of Complaints (Beschwerden-Liste). The results showed a significantly higher alexithymia in infertile men compared with healthy men (P < 0.05), but a significantly lower alexithymia compared with psychosomatic outpatients (P < 0.05). Furthermore the study group showed significantly more somatic complaints in the List of Complaints compared with healthy men (P < 0.05). The importance of alexithymia in male infertility is discussed on the basis of empirical results that it might play a defensive role as far as depression is concerned but on the other hand increases the possibility of somatic complaints. The need for prospective studies in further research is emphasized.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".