Investigation of alexithymia and levels of anxiety and depression among patients with restless legs syndrome
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine alexithymia among restless legs syndrome (RLS) patients, compare with healthy controls, and argue the clinical inferences of this relationship. We searched for anxiety and depression and their clinical outcomes among patients and searched whether the results are similar to previous studies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eighty-seven RLS patients and 88 age, gender, and educationally matched healthy controls were assessed in Bezmialem Foundation University Hospital. RLS patients and healthy controls were assessed with the Sociodemographic Data Form constructed for the present study, 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20), Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), and Beck Anxiety Scale (BAS). The patient group was also assessed with the International Restless Legs Syndrome Study Group (IRLSSG) RLS Severity Scale. RESULTS: < 0.05). RLS severity score was positively correlated with the scores of anxiety and depression scales. However, no significant relationship was found between scores of IRLSSG RLS scale and TAS-20 total and subscale scores. CONCLUSION: RLS patients were found to be more alexithymic than healthy controls, whereas no significant relationship was found between RLS severity and levels of alexithymia. Still, alexithymia might be a predictor for early diagnosis and may be considered in the treatment and follow-up of RLS. RLS patients have higher depression and anxiety scores than healthy individuals. Thus, depression and anxiety should be taken into consideration throughout the RLS treatment.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it