Prevalence of alexithymia among a cohort of well controlled HIV-infected adolescents and non-HIV-infected adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: With the introduction of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) in 1996, the quality of life of people living with HIV has improved. Although people diagnosed and living with HIV are overwhelmed by emotions, we found that various emotional manifestations are understudied within this group of patients. One such aspect is alexithymia which is seen at exorbitantly high rates among patients with depression, causing a major public health concern. In our study, we hypothesized that clinically significant changes with HAART would be associated with changes in depression, anxiety, and alexithymia. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted with a convenient sample of 44 HIV-seropositive children and 30 healthy school children of age 12–15 years. We obtained permission from participants to access their medical records to obtain data regarding their CD4 cell counts and viral loads over the entire study period. The enrolled participants were administered a validated 20-item Toronto alexithymia scale (TAS-20) to assess their alexithymic levels. Results: Mean alexithymia score of healthy children was 0.67 ± 1.26 and mean of children living with HIV was 4.48 ± 7.80. When comparing the TAS-20 scores of children living with HIV and healthy children, children living with HIV revealed scores slightly higher than healthy children, but none showed scores equal to 40. There was statistically significant difference between both groups (P = 0.003). Conclusion: Our study revealed that there was a significant difference between the TAS scores of HIV-seropositive children on HAART and healthy children, none of their scores indicated alexithymic condition. In the health sector, alexithymia has been emphasized as barriers to patient-practitioner communication. Clinicians should be aware of the decrease in alexithymic traits among HIV subjects who are under HAART. This study highlights the benefits of the HAART era, namely the chronicity of the infection and the possibility of disease management, thus improving the mental status of such population.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".