Levels of anxiety sensitivity, somatosensory amplification and alexithymia in patients with unexplained infertility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In this study, we aimed to focus on the psychological aspect of unexplained infertility by comparing their psychological features to those of infertile patients with a known causes and fertile patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Sixty unexplained infertility patients, 50 infertile patients with a known cause and 56 fertile patients were included in the study. Patients were evaluated using socio-demographic data form, Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20), Somatosensory Amplification Scale (SAS) and Anxiety Sensitivity Index (ASI-3). RESULTS: No significant differences in the levels of alexithymia, somatosensory amplification and anxiety sensitivity were detected between the groups (P > .05). When the correlation of clinical scale scores with each other was analysed in the whole group of infertile patients regardless of the cause, a weak positive correlation was found between anxiety sensitivity and difficulty in identifying feelings. CONCLUSION: In our study, it has been found out that; regardless of the knowledge of the aetiology of infertility, the levels of alexithymia, somatosensory amplification and anxiety sensitivity of infertile cases did not differ from those of fertile women. However, it has been shown that as the difficulty in identifying emotions increases in infertile cases, anxiety sensitivity, which may cause psychological infertility, also increases.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".