Alexithymia in obese adolescents is associated with severe obesity and binge eating behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To study the occurrence of alexithymia in obese adolescents. Cross-sectional study with 102 obese adolescents. Sociodemographic, clinical, and psychometric data (alexithymia and binge eating) were analyzed The Brazilian version of the Toronto Alexithymia Scale and Binge Eating Scale were used for psychometric data collection. Statistical analysis was performed using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, Student's t-test, ANOVA, chi-square, linear regression, and logistic regression. The study was approved by Research Ethics Committee. A 22% occurrence of alexithymia was observed. Considering the category “possible alexithymia”, half of the participants presented some alexithymic behavior. Adolescents with alexithymia had higher binge eating scores (alexithymia 16,2 versus possible alexithymia 11,7 versus no alexithymia 8,5; ANOVA p < 0,0005) and three times more binge eating behavior than adolescents with no alexithymia or possible alexithymia (alexithymia 36.4% versus 17.2% possible alexithymia versus 11.8% no alexithymia; chi-square = 6,2, p = 0.04). In simple linear regression, alexithymia scores were positively associated with binge eating scores (r2 = 0,4; p = 0,002). Binary logistic regression showed a three times higher probability of an adolescent with severe obesity to meet the criteria for alexithymia. There was a 22% occurrence of alexithymia in obese adolescents. It was positively associated with obesity severity and higher binge eating scores, suggesting a relationship between severe obesity, alexithymia, and binge eating behavior.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".