Factors associated with alexithymia among the Lebanese population: results of a cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To our knowledge, no research project on alexithymia has been conducted in Lebanon. The objective of this study was to assess risk factors associated with alexithymia in a representative sample of the Lebanese population. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study, conducted between November 2017 and March 2018, which enrolled 789 participants from al districts of Lebanon. The Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) was used to measure alexithymia, the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test to assess alcohol use, drinking patterns, and alcohol-related issues, the Rosenberg self-esteem scale to evaluate self-worth, the Hamilton depression rating scale and Hamilton Anxiety Scale to screen for depression and anxiety respectively, the Three-Dimensional Work Fatigue Inventory to measure physical, mental and emotional work fatigue respectively, the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale to evaluate suicidal ideation and behavior, the Perceived Stress Scale to measure stress, the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale to help identify a social anxiety disorder and the Quick Emotional Intelligence Self-Assessment to measure emotional intelligence. RESULTS: The results showed that 395 (50.4%) were not alexithymic, 226 (28.8%) were possible alexithymic, whereas 163 (20.8%) were alexithymic according to established clinical cutoffs. Stress (Beta = 0.456), emotional exhaustion (Beta = 0.249), the AUDIT score (Beta = 0.225) and anxiety (Beta = 0.096) were associated with higher alexithymia, whereas low emotional work fatigue (Beta = -0.114) and being married (Beta = -1.933) were associated with lower alexithymia. People in distress (Beta = 7.33) was associated with higher alexithymia scores, whereas people with high wellbeing (Beta = -2.18), an intermediate (Beta = -2.90) and a high (Beta = -2.71) family monthly income were associated with lower alexithymia compared to a low one. CONCLUSION: Alexithymia appears to be influenced by many factors, including stress, anxiety, and burnout. To reduce its prevalence, it is important that health professionals educate the public about these factors. Further studies on a larger scale are needed to confirm our findings.
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 | 0.001 | 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".