Health-related quality-of-life profiles in nonalexithymic and alexithymic subjects from general population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective Earlier studies have shown an association between alexithymia and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). There has been some controversy as to whether this is attributable solely to psycho-social domains of HRQoL or also to physical domains. Furthermore, there are no studies on HRQoL profiles in representative general population samples controlling for sociodemographic variables, mental health and somatic health. Methods The study forms part of the Health 2000 Study. Altogether 5090 participants from general population, aged 30-97 years, filled in the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale and the 15D HRQoL scale. Depressive and anxiety disorders were assessed in a structured psychiatric interview. Physical health was examined by physicians. The 15-dimension HRQoL profiles of both alexithymic and non-alexithymic subjects were obtained by analysis of covariance, controlling for sociodemographic and health-related variables. Results The alexithymic group had significantly ( P Conclusions Alexithymia seems to be a personality trait with a statistically significant association to every dimension of HRQoL, not only to psychosocial domains. However, the associations between alexithymia and some somatic dimensions may be of little clinical significance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".