The relationship between blood pressure regulation and alexithymia variability in newly diagnosed essential hypertension patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Aim: Blood pressure disorder can accompany mood and various psychosomatic disorders. One of the signs of emotional disorganization is alexithymia, which is defined as the impaired ability to experience and express emotions. The relationship of hypertension (HT) with alexithymia is well known, but few studies show the change in alexithymia status after blood pressure regulation. Our study aimed to evaluate the level of alexithymia caused by optimal medical treatment in newly diagnosed essential HT patients. Methods: Fifty-six essential HT patients (33 males, 23 females) diagnosed with 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring were included in this cross-sectional study. All participants filled the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) during diagnosis and when blood pressure was regulated with treatment. Results: The mean age of the study group was 50.7 (9.9) years. There were twenty-three (41.1%) females. As expected, the systolic and diastolic blood pressure values were significantly lower after treatment (144.41 (9.11) / 89.42 (9.31) mmHg vs. 122.75 (7.27) /74.96 (3.18) mmHg, P<0.001 for both). While TAS-DIF (difficulty identifying feelings) and TAS-EOT (externally oriented thinking) did not significantly change after treatment, a significant decrease was observed in TAS-DDF (difficulty describing feelings) (14.29 (3.51) vs 12.57 (3.06), P<0.01). Total TAS score, TAS-20, was also significantly decreased after treatment (55.67 (8.82) vs 52.35 (7.71), P=0.036). Conclusion: Our findings show that TAS-DDF, one of the subscales of alexithymia, can be improved by regulating blood pressure. We think that psychiatric and emotional states should be evaluated in the follow-up of HT. It is also essential to increase the awareness of patients about coping with stress and stress management.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".