Alexithymia in Diabetes Mellitus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus is a chronic, progressive disease with complex therapy protocols requiring major coping efforts from patients to achieve and maintain glycaemic control in order to reduce risk of diabetic complications. Disease coping strategies including good knowledge of diabetes and high ability of self-care have been reported to be impaired by alexithymic features. Alexithymia is a psychological construct characterised by inability to express emotions verbally, poor imagination and operational thinking, leading to failure in psychological self-regulation. OBJECTIVE: To compare prevalence of alexithymia and mean Toronto Alexithymia Scale-26 (TAS-26) scores in diabetic patients with non-diabetic controls; to investigate the association of alexithymia with glycemic control in diabetes. METHOD: In this cross- sectional study, TAS-26 scores of 193 diabetic patients and 49 non-diabetic controls were compared. Disease related factors were obtained from patient records. Alexithymia was used as a continuous (mean TAS-26 scores) and semi-quantitative (dichotomised into non-alexithymic 11>TAS-26 scores>11 and alexithymic individuals) variable. Descriptive data are presented as mean +/- SD, median (range) or %. Differences in means were compared via Independent-Samples T Test and One-Way ANOVA. Proportions were analysed with chi-square test and odds ratios (OR) were calculated via cross tabulation with a confidence interval (CI) of 95%. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: The control group was similar with respect to age, gender and education with the diabetic group. In the diabetic study population (n=193, male/female: 42/58%, age 54.2 +/- 14.0 years, median diabetes duration 7 years (1-32 years), postprandial blood glucose (PBG) 243 +/- 110 mg/dl HbA1 c 7.3 +/- 3.6%) prevalence of alexithymia was significantly higher than in the control group (65 % in diabetics vs. 45 % in controls, p=0.011; mean TAS-26 score 12.3 +/- 3.7 vs. 10.6 +/- 3.6, p=0.004, respectively). Poor postprandial glycaemic control (p=0.002), female gender (p=0.026), combination therapy (p=0.037) and poor educational level (p=0.005) were positively associated with TAS-26 scores in diabetic individuals. Alexithymic diabetic patients were less educated (OR=1.2, p=0.046) and under worse glycaemic control (OR=2.4, p=0.005) compared to their non-alexithymic counterparts.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".