Procesamiento emocional en pacientes TCA adultas vs. adolescentes. Reconocimientoy regulación emocional
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective. Though difficulties in emotional processing have been associated to eating disorders (EDs), the debate as to whether these difficulties are antecedents or consequence of EDs remains a contentious issue. Most studies have focused on long-term adult patients, but few studies have assessed adolescent patients. This study compared difficulties in emotional recognition and regulation in adult and adolescent patients to determine if they were predisposing factors and/or maintenance factors. Method. A total of 48 patients (27 adults, 21 adolescents) were compared with 41 healthy controls (13 adults, and 28 adolescents) using the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) and the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS). Results. All of the patients exhibited more difficulties in emotional recognition (alexithymia) and regulation than controls. No differences were observed among patients in terms of body mass index (BMI). The intensity of these difficulties was modulated by age and the severity of the disorder. Alexithymia was more intense in adult patients than in adolescent patients, but both groups showed similar difficulties in emotional acceptance and regulation. Severely affected patients (adult and adolescents) exhibited higher levels of alexithymia, rejection, and emotional dysfunction. Conclusion. It is crucial that emotional therapeutic interventions are carried out from the commencement of treatment. Prevention programmes should enhance recognition, emotional acceptance, and regulation in individuals at risk.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".