Alexithymia among patients with unexplained physical symptoms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Some research suggests that mental health problems can be brought on by the stress of having unexplained symptom. In non-western cultures especially, psychological distress is often communicated through multiple somatic complaints. The biopsychosocial model takes into consideration all factors affecting health and disease, supporting the integration of biological, psychological and social factors in the assessment and treatment. Objectives In our study we assess prevalence of alexithymia as a potential psychopathological attribute manifesting as unexplained somatic symptoms Methods 196 patients aged 18 to 60 with unexplained physical symptoms for at least three months, after collection of demographic data, medical and psychiatric history, were subject to Arabic version of the following scales : patient health questionnaire PHQ-15 to assess severity of somatic symptoms, patient health questionnaire PHQ-9 to assess depressive symptoms, generalized anaxiety disorder GAD-7 to assess general anxiety disorder symptoms and Toronto Alexithymia scale TAS to assess alexithymia Results 90% of ours ample were female patients, 49,5% showed alexithymia, 27,6% were borderline alexithymic and 23% had no alexithymia. Patients with unexplained physical symptoms showed moderate to high depressive symptoms in 81,1% of the sample, moderate to severe anxiety symptoms in 73,5%. Severity of somatic symptoms as assessed by PHQ-15 were significantly highly correlated to scores for Alexithymia (TAS), depressive symptoms (PHQ-9) and anxiety symptoms (GAD-7) p<0,001 Conclusions Alexithymia is prevalent among patients with unexplained physical symptoms. This later population has high prevalence of depressive and anxiety symptoms that go with the severity of somatic manifestations
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) | 0.004 | 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".