Alexithymia and Acne Vulgaris: A Case Control Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess relationship between alexithymia and acne vulgaris in young people. METHODS: A hundred and eleven subjects between 15 and 25 years of age referred to out-patient clinic of dermatology with acne and 78 subjects applied to family physician for complaints other than acne were included in patient and control groups of the study, respectively. A questionnaire to determine demographic characteristics, an acne classification to determine severity of acne and Toronto Alexithymic Scale (TAS) to assess alexithymia were used. RESULTS: The mean scores of TAS were 52.7±10.8 and 51.7±10.7 in patient and control groups, respectively. Alexitymia was determined in 23.4% of the subjects in acne group and in 24.4% of control group. No significant differences were found between groups in terms of alexithymia, intermediate alexitymia and three-factors of TAS. CONCLUSION: Alexithymia does not appear to be related to acne vulgaris.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".