Difficulties in assessing alexithymia in motor and non-motor functional gastrointestinal disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Alexithymia is said to be an important feature of functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGD). Most studies focus on the presence of alexithymia in patients suffering non-motor FGD (NMFGD) but few studies have analyzed its occurrence in motor FGD (MFGD) patients. Objectives - To describe the presence of alexithymia, measured with the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20), in a sample of FGD inpatients. - To analyze the differences in alexithymia, measured with the TAS-20, between MFGD and NMFGD inpatients. Material and method 46 inpatients admitted to the Vall d’Hebron Digestive System Research Unit to study the existence of FGD were evaluated from January 2008 to July 2010. All patients completed the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20). Results The mean age of the sample was 41.02 ± 16.86 years, 89.1% were women and 10.9% were men. With regard to their diagnostic condition, 31 met criteria of NMFGD, 13 of MFGD, and 2 did not met criteria of both disorders. The mean TAS-20 total score was: 46.24 ± 13.60. MFGD patients obtained a mean score of 45.45 ± 12.53, and patients with NMFGD had a mean score of 45.75 ± 12.53. No statistically significant differences were found between both subtypes with regard to alexithymia. Conclusions Alexithymia, measured with the TAS-20, may not be present in FGD. Discordances of our results with previous findings in FGD may be due to complex psychosocial factors and to psychometric difficulties in assessing alexithymia in this group of patients.
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 | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".