Initial investigation of somatization in the general population of Serbia: Prevalence, manifestations and predictors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction. Somatization is one of the most prevalent current health issues affecting the well-being and quality of life in the general population. Many psychological constructs influence somatization and its outcomes. It was our aim to assess the features and prevalence of somatization in general population of Serbia by using the Patient Health Questionnaire-15 instrument, as well as to determine its relations with personality traits, factors of psychological distress and well-being. Material and Methods. Two studies were performed: Study 1 (N = 714) aimed to determine the relations between the Big Five personality traits, alexithymia and somatization, and Study 2 (N = 807) investigated the relationship between factors of psychological distress such as depression, anxiety and stress, factors of well-being such as life satisfaction and subjective vitality with somatization. Results. In Study 1, Neuroticism and Toronto Alexithymia Scale-20 Factor 1, difficulty identifying feelings, strongly correlated with somatization, and the measured constructs explained 33.4% of somatization variance. In Study 2, anxiety and stress had the strongest correlation indices from the measured constructs and Study 2 regression model explained 44.7% of the variance. The most prevalent symptoms measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire-15 were tiredness, back pain and headaches. Conclusion. Somatization levels were slightly higher than those previously reported in general population. However, they were still well under those reported in the clinical populations. Symptom prevalence was compatible with previous findings in the general population, whereas Neuroticism and anxiety were most closely associated with somatization. Further research is needed to define other factors that contribute to the development of somatization.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".