Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The term "brittle" is used to describe an uncommon subgroup of patients with type 1 diabetes whose lives are disrupted by severe glycaemic instability with repeated and prolonged hospitalization. Psychosocial problems and emotional disturbances are the major perceived underlying causes of brittle diabetes. Aim of this study is (a) to assess alexithymia in patients with brittle and non-brittle diabetes, and (2) to examine its relationship with specific parameters of general psychopathology. METHODS: Participants comprised 44 patients with brittle diabetes and a case-control group of 88 individuals with stable (non-brittle) diabetes, matched for age, gender, years of education, and diabetes duration. Alexithymia and general psychopathology were assessed using the "20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale" (TAS-20) and the "Symptom Checklist-90-Revised" (SCL-90-R). RESULTS: Patients with brittle diabetes were more alexithymic than the control group. Alexithymia scores showed significant correlations with SCL-90-R anxiety and somatization subscales, but were relatively independent from gender, education, diabetes duration and complications, depression and glycaemic control. CONCLUSIONS: Given the impact of alexithymia on type 1 diabetes, the early detection and intervention of alexithymic subjects are very important for a better outcome of diabetes.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".