MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122000826 · doi:10.1258/rsmsmj.51.3.15

Alexithymia in Diabetes Mellitus

2006· article· en· W2122000826 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Pınar Topsever, Tm Filiz, Serpil Salman, Elvan Alper Şengül, E Sarac, Ruşen Topallı, Süleyman Görpelioğlu, T. Yilmaz

Bibliographic record

VenueScottish Medical Journal · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlexithymiaMedicineGlycemicDiabetes mellitusOdds ratioToronto Alexithymia ScalePopulationInternal medicineConfidence intervalCoping (psychology)Clinical psychologyPhysical therapyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations47
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScottish Medical JournalSame topicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207